roseau river lake bottom project bottom_step 1 submittal_c… · one of the project goals is to...

RRWMB STEP 1 SUBMITTAL AND CONCEPT REPORT

ROSEAU RIVER LAKE BOTTOM PROJECT ROSEAU RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT

DECEMBER 2015

ROSEAU RIVER LAKE BOTTOM PROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT SETTING............................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT NEED .................................................................................................................. 2

FREQUENCY OF FLOODING ................................................................................................ 2 PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING PROJECT .................................................................................. 2 SOLUTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 2

EXISTING PROJECT FEATURES ....................................................................................... 5 LANDSCAPE ...................................................................................................................... 5 EXISTING STREAMS AND DITCHES ...................................................................................... 5 LAND OWNERSHIP............................................................................................................. 5 AREAS TO BE PROTECTED ................................................................................................. 5

HYDROLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 11 HYDROLOGIC MODEL ...................................................................................................... 11 SUBWATERSHEDS ........................................................................................................... 11 DESIGN STORM EVENTS .................................................................................................. 11 DESIGN RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................................... 12 RUNOFF LOSSES ............................................................................................................ 12

10-Day Events .................................................................................................... 12

24-Hour Events ................................................................................................... 12

TIME OF CONCENTRATION ............................................................................................... 12 HYDROGRAPH SHAPE...................................................................................................... 12 PEAK OUTFLOWS ............................................................................................................ 13

HYDRAULICS .................................................................................................................... 14 HYDRAULIC MODEL ......................................................................................................... 14 PROPOSED HYDRAULIC FEATURES .................................................................................. 14

Construct Embankments ..................................................................................... 14

Construct Principle Spillways .............................................................................. 14

Construct Outlet Structure................................................................................... 14

Construct New Exterior Drainage Ditches ........................................................... 15

PROJECT STORAGE VOLUMES ......................................................................................... 17 HYDRAULIC RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 17

Peak Flow Reduction .......................................................................................... 17

GEOTECHNICAL ............................................................................................................... 21 SUMMARY OF PROJECT GOALS, COST, AND FINANCING .......................................... 25 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 27

CONCEPT REPORT i DECEMBER 2015


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Overall Drainage Areas at Specific Locations ..............................................................11

Table 2. Design Storm Events ...................................................................................................12

Table 3. Modeled Existing Peak Flows ......................................................................................13

Table 4 Modeled Peak Flow Rates at Ross Gage .....................................................................17

Table 5 Soil Map Unit Descriptions ...........................................................................................23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location .......................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Drainage Area ............................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3 Landuse ....................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4 Existing Stream and Ditch Systems ............................................................................. 8

Figure 5 Land Ownership ........................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6 Protected Area Downstream .......................................................................................10

Figure 7 Outlet Structure ...........................................................................................................15

Figure 8 Proposed Project Layout .............................................................................................16

Figure 9 100-Year 10-DayPeak Flows ......................................................................................18

Figure 10 HMS and RAS Comparison .......................................................................................19

Figure 11 Stage Storage Curve .................................................................................................20

Figure 12 Soil Types for Project Area ........................................................................................22

CONCEPT REPORT ii DECEMBER 2015


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. STAR Value Worksheet

Appendix B. Lessard Sams Application

Appendix C. Examples of Previous Works Completed

Appendix D. Red River Watershed Management Board Evaluation Worksheet for Flood Damage Reduction Projects

CONCEPT REPORT iii DECEMBER 2015


ACRONYMS AND SHORT FORMS

BMP Best Management Practices BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources CD County Ditch CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe CN Curve Number DEM Digital Elevation Model EAW Environmental Assessment Worksheet EFM Ecosystem Functions Model EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDR Flood Damage Reduction fps feet per second FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographic Information System GPS Geographic Positioning System HEC USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center HMS HEC Hydrologic Modeling System MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MnDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service, formally the SCS NRE Natural Resource Enhancement NWS National Weather Service PWT Project Work Team R Clark Storage Coefficient RAS HEC River Analysis System RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe RRFDRWG Red River Flood Damage Reduction Work Group RRWD Roseau River Watershed District RRWMA Roseau River Wildlife Management Area SCS Soil Conservation Service SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWMM Storm Water Management Model TC Time of Concentration USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

CONCEPT REPORT iv DECEMBER 2015


USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey WSE Water Surface Elevation WMA Wildlife Management Area

CONCEPT REPORT v DECEMBER 2015


Introduction The Roseau River Watershed District has prepared a Concept Report for the Roseau Lake Bottom Project. The project is located within the footprint of the drained Roseau Lake, just east of Ross, MN. Currently the basin fills to some extent in the majority of years. This filling currently takes place in an unregulated fashion; therefore, there is room to improve the efficiency of the flood damage reduction benefits. The purpose of the project will be to provide reduced peak flows downstream on the Roseau River by better timing the stage at which Roseau Lake Bottom begins to fill. For the purpose of this report, all elevations discussed in this report refer to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Summary of Activities The RRWD was formed on June 17, 1963 under provisions of Minnesota Statute 103D. The District covers portions of Beltrami, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Kittson, and Roseau Counties. The District is flood prone; it is affected by repetitive flooding on a consistent basis. The primary reason for flooding in this area is due to topography. The west portion of the basin is the flat ancestral bed of Lake Agassiz; averaging 3 to 5 feet of elevation drop in per mile. When heavy rains fall on this flat area, the land is unable to drain quickly and flooding can result. Compounding the flooding is the fact that there are ridges and steeper topography in the southern and eastern portions of the watershed. These areas drain more quickly, and inundate the flatter land to the north and west.

In 1914, the original Roseau Lake was drained for agricultural purposes. Since 1949 there have been discussions to create a project on the site to promote reduction of flooding to some extent in the basin. The United States Amry Corps of Engineers and the Minnestoa Department of Natural Resources have developed projects for Roseau Lake Bottom, but ultimately all previous attempts at projects have stalled out due to lack of funding or lack of sustained interest. In a renewed effort to re-examine the problem, the RRWD has begun the project planning process and preliminary engineering.

Project Setting The project is located 5.5 miles northwest of the City of Roseau and 3.5 miles south of the Canadian boarder. The total drainage area of the project is 1,085 square miles. The primary sources of water for Roseau Lake Bottom are the Roseau River, Sprague Creek and to a lesser extent Pine Creek.

The Roseau River portion of the drainage area is 640 square miles. The Sprague Creek drainage area is 332 sqaure miles with a large portion of this drainage area residing in Manitoba. Pine Creek contributes 77 square miles of drainage area, however a large portion of the Canadian flows from Pine Creek are diverted westerly to the Roseau River Wildlife Management Area Pools. Figure 1 shows the project location with respect to the Roseau River

CONCEPT REPORT 1 DECEMBER 2015


Watershed District, Roseau County, and the State of Minnesota. The project drainage area is found in Figure 2.

Project Need Frequency of Flooding Currently, flooding of the basin to some extent takes place between a 1-yr and 2-yr frequency. Because of how flat the terrain is in this area significant areas of state land are flooded when the river exceeds 2,000 CFS, which is just below a 2.5-yr event. The highest peak flow ever recorded just below the project site at Ross, MN was 10,500 CFS in June of 2002. (USGS Gage # 05107500)

Problems with Existing Project In the existing project location, the ditches that were originally dug to drain the basin are also the primary conduit for filling the basin with backwaters from the Roseau River. As the stage on the river increases, the elevation of the water in the basin rises as well. There is currently no way to control flows into or out of the basin.

Solutions The proposed project features a network of constructed embankments along the Roseau River that will prevent the basin from filling until a set stage on the river had been reached at which point flows would be allowed to flow into a relatively empty Lake Bottom.

The Roseau Lake Bottom project as proposed consists of a series of setback levees that will prevent the basin from initially filling as the stage of the Roseau River rises. This project will allow the lower flows (<2000 cfs) to pass through the river channel without flooding the Lake Bottom, and then allow for the higher flows to be allowed into a relatively empty basin later in the flood hydrograph. The gated and ungated storage volume saved for later in the hydrograph is approximately 47,500 AC-FT.

The primary function of this project is a detention site for flood waters, another purpose of this project is to allow for improved waterfowl and other wildlife habitat management. This project also has the capacity to help augment the flows in the Roseau River during extremely dry years.



Figure 1. Project Location



Figure 2. Drainage Area


ROSEAU RIVER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA POOL 2 AND POOL 3 OUTLET

Existing Project Features Landscape The landscape within the project site primarily consists of grasslands, wetlands, or previously cropped land that is not currently farmed. The land inside the basin is very flat with some areas having less than one foot in elevation change per mile. Along the edges of the basin near the higher ground, farming does still occur when the land is not flooded due to high river stages. There are also groves of trees located along the river in some areas. A landuse map of the project area is shown in Figure 3.

Existing Streams and Ditches The main source of water into the project is the Roseau River. Other streams and ditches that will be involved in this project include Sprague Creek, Pine Creek and Judicial Ditch 61. Locations of all the streams and ditches involved with the project can be seen in Figure 4.

Land Ownership A majority of the land within the Roseau Lake Bottom is owned by the State of Minnesota. The majority of this public land is used for recreation while a small portion is leased for agricultural purposes. The remaining land near or on the outer edges of the proposed embankments is owned privately. Figure 5 illustrates the land ownership for the project site. Approximately 40% of the land near the project is private land and is mainly wooded, used for agriculture, or in CRP. Estimated market land values were obtained from the Roseau County Treasurer online data. Private land in the area is valued at approximately $600.00 per acre minimum but will vary based on the land classification assigned to each individual parcel.

Areas to Be Protected One of the project goals is to reduce peak flows on the Roseau River downstream of the project location. Completion of this goal would directly benefit the entire floodplain down stream of the project site. The floodplain downstream of the Lake Bottom Project is approximately 124 square miles of land. This area would include homes, farmsteads, pastures, fields, roads and bridges. A map of the potential protected area can be seen in Figure 6.

Natural Resources Enhancement Components The mediation project teams have submitted an application to receive Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council funding. The full application can be found in Appendix B, and a summary of the natural resource compments is shown below.

The project has two primary purposes:

1) To improve the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat in and surrounding the Roseau Lake basin area. A key objective of the project is to provide migratory habitat (including an abundance of forage) for waterfowl and shorebirds in spring and in fall.

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER’S REPORT 5 FEBRUARY 2013


2) To effectively use the water storage capacity of the lake basin to reduce peak flows on the Roseau River downstream of the lake bed by up to 10% or more compared to current conditions as well as reduce the footprint of the 100-year floodplain.

Wildlife habitat benefits will be achieved by constructing a system of levees and water control structures to provide capacity to actively manage water levels in the lake basin. This infrastructure will allow wildlife managers to manage lake levels throughout the year to achieve wildlife management objectives. Specifically, timely water level management in spring and fall will create conditions to provide suitable forage in abundance for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, better management of water levels in the basin during the growing season will enhance the relative value of surrounding grass cover for nesting and provide brood-rearing cover for waterfowl and other waterbirds. Benefits to aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic mammals will accrue whenever water is present. Fish habitat on the river will improve as a result of features and operation that improves water quality, hydrologic conditions and the habitat corridor along the Roseau River.

At the same time, this infrastructure will provide water managers the ability to manipulate the timing of flood flows in the area to optimize the water storage capacity of the lake bed to achieve flood damage reduction objectives. In its current state, the Roseau Lake basin area floods in the early portion of the flood hydrograph such that flood storage is unavailable when the flood peak passes through the area. Flood damage reduction benefits will be achieved by altering the timing of water storage in the Lake Basin area so the available storage in the lake bed is more effectively used to reduce peak flows downstream.

The project has secondary benefits including improved hydrologic conditions in the Roseau River which will contribute to improved water quality, stream stability, and fish habitat and will also benefit rare plant communities in the Big Swamp area downstream. The project is consistent with the watershed plan and will compliment other ongoing work in the watershed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, improve water quality, and reduce flood damage.



Figure 3 Landuse



Figure 4 Existing Stream and Ditch Systems



Figure 5 Land Ownership



Figure 6 Protected Area Downstream



Hydrology Hydrologic Model A HEC-HMS model of the watershed was developed by the USACE using previous models as a reference along with recently acquired LiDAR and a consistent methodology with other Red River basin watershed models. The USACE HMS-Model was calibrated to storm events of 10-day and 24-hour durations and used to develop project hydrographs.

Subwatersheds Figure 2 shows the watershed for the Roseau Lake Bottom and the entire Roseau River watershed to the Roseau River at Ross. The total drainage area for the Roseau Lake Bottom is approximately 1085 square miles. Overall drainage areas at specific locations relavent to the project are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Overall Drainage Areas at Specific Locations

LOCATION DRAINAGE AREA (MI2)

ROSEAU RIVER AT ROSS

1085

ROSEAU RIVER AT CONFLUENCE WITH

SPRAGUE CREEK

640

SPRAGUE CREEK 332

PINE CREEK 77

Design Storm Events The Project design is based on the 10-year 24-hour, 100-year 24-hour, and 100-year 10-day storms, which are used to evaluate the proposed features. Design storm rainfall depths are from Atlas 14 Volume 8 (2013). A gridded design storm rainfall depth was used to assign depths to various portions of the Roseau watershed. The design storm events were calculated in GIS using an average value of rainfall across the watershed. Average rainfall depths across the project watershed are presented in Table 2 below.



Table 2. Design Storm Events

EVENT RAINFALL (IN.) 10-YEAR 24-HOUR 3.36 100-YEAR 24-HOUR 5.68 100-YEAR 10-DAY 8.32

Source: (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013)

Design Rainfall Distribution Since the release of NOAA Atlas 14, the SCS Type II rainfall distribution is no longer the recommended rainfall distribution. All storm events are distributed using the Atlas 14 rainfall distribution curve. The most frequent 50% probability 1st quartile was used. While the 24-hour hyeotgraph was available in Atlas 14, a 10-day hyetograph was not provided in Atlas 14. The 96-hour hyetograph was scaled to obtain a 10-day hyetograph.

Runoff Losses Losses are attributed to initial abstraction, infiltration, evaporation, and groundwater and surface water storage. Surface runoff is defined as the difference between total precipitation and total losses. Ten-day duration storms represent typical spring runoff events where most of the runoff is due to spring snow melt. Twenty-four hour duration storms represent typical summer storms and are not typically attributed to snowmelt runoff.

10-Day Events Since it is assumed that the ground is fully saturated and frost is still in the ground, initial abstraction and constant loss rates were set to zero.

24-Hour Events Twenty-four hour duration storm events used the SCS Curve Number method. Factors affecting curve number values include hydrologic soil group, hydrologic condition and antecedent moisture condition, land cover, and cropping practice (Gupta, 2008). For 24-hour events, the USACE HEC-HMS model uses curve numbers ranging from 64 to 84. The median curve number across all subbasins is 75.

Time of Concentration Time of concentration is defined as the travel time of a water drop from the hydraulically most remote point in the subbasin to its outflow location (Gupta, 2008). Its value is based on the physical characteristics of a watershed, in terms of basin slope, flow length, and roughness coefficient.

The initial time of concentration data in the USACE HEC-HMS model was developed using a Minnesota DNR GIS program that estimates travel times based on land slope, land use, and degree of channelization. The initial time of concentrations were then calibrated to several historic storm events. Time of concentration varies across subbasins from 6 to 70 hours. The median subbasin time of concentration is 20 hours.



Unit Hydrograph Shape The District Model uses the Clark synthetic unit hydrograph transformation. This method requires time of concentration (Tc) and the storage coefficient (R) as inputs to this method. Studies have found that the storage coefficient, divided by the sum of the time of concentration and storage coefficient, is reasonably consistent over a region. A USACE study of various gages in the Red River Basin was used to estimate watershed ratios of R/(R+Tc) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - St. Paul District, 1990).

Peak Outflows Table 3 provides existing peak flows and total volumes of flow through various locations relevant to the project. Peak flow data was gathered from USGS for the Roseau River at Ross, MN gage from 1919 to 2013. A rating curve was created from the data and was used to estimate the river stages using the modeled peak flows obtained from the USACE HEC-HMS model for each of the specific rainfall events. The existing peak flows from the USACE HEC-HMS model at the Roseau River at Ross gage are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Modeled Existing Peak Flows

LOCATION 10-YEAR 24-HOUR 100-YEAR 24-HOUR 100-YEAR 10-DAY

Peak Flow (cfs)

Gage Elevation

Peak Flow (cfs)

Gage Elevation

Peak Flow (cfs)

Gage Elevation

ROSEAU RIVER AT ROSS FLOW

3080.6 1035.4 4546.4 1037.3 9885.0 1038.8

Note: All values are from the USACE HMS model.



Hydraulics Hydraulic Model Due to the complexity of the Lake Bottom Project site where there are multiple inflow locations, river backups, and overbank flow at different locations taking place at different stages; HDR elected to use HEC-RAS to simulate the hydraulic performance of the potential project. The flows from the USACE HEC-HMS model were used as inflows for an unsteady HEC-RAS simulation. Both pre and post project conditions were analyzed in this method.

Proposed Hydraulic Features The proposed project is to consist of four main project features: • Construct new embankments along Roseau River and Lake Bottom Project Site • Construct inflow spillways • Construct new inlet/outlet structures • Construct new exterior drainage ditches along embankments

Construct Embankments Approximately 24 miles of embankment are proposed to be constructed, offset an established distance (pending a geotechnical report) from the Roseau River and around the perimeter of the Lake Bottom Project site. The layout of the proposed embankments and the most current working Alternative can be seen in Figure 8. The elevation of the embankments is proposed to be constructed to 1036’ NAVD88. The purpose of the embankments along the Roseau River will be to contain the flows of the river in a constructed floodplain until the stage of the river reaches the elevation of the inlet structure for smaller events and the spillways for larger events. The purpose of the embankments constructed around the exterior of the Lake Bottom Project site will be to contain the extent of the flooding. The alignment of the exterior embankments was selected based upon the topography of the existing lake basin, where the natural ridges of the Lake Basin were also selected for the location of the embankments.

Construct Spillways The project will have spillways that will be utilized as both inflow and outflow locations for the project during events where the stage of the river rises above the elevation of the spillways. The elevation of the proposed spillways will be constructed to 1034’ NAVD88, this elevation is two feet lower than the elevation of the main embankments.

Construct Outlet Structure New structures are planned to accomodate both inflow and outflow of water to and from the holding areas. The platform and gate mechanisms are set at an elevation above the 100-yr water surface elevation in order to keep them above water levels that could cause damage. A diagram of the gate is shown in Figure 7.



Figure 7 Outlet Structure

Construct New Exterior Drainage Ditches Existing ditches will be improved and additional ditches will be created along the exterior of the proposed embankments. The purpose of the proposed exterior ditches will be to provide basic drainage for the areas where current drainage patterns will be altered and to provide the ability to route early water from the north and east around the project site. The ability to route water around the project site will save storage volume for later in the flood to help decrease peak flows.



Figure 8 Proposed Project Layout



Project Storage Volumes The proposed project has a total storage of 47,500 AC-FT of storage. Approximately 31,000 AC-FT would be gated storage and 16,500 AC-FT would be ungated storage. Depending on the normal pool elevation for the project, a portion of the gated storage could be converted to drawdown storage for natural resource enhancement purposes. A stage storage curve is shown in Figure 11.

Hydraulic Results The hydraulics of the proposed project are evaluated based on the goals of the project. Desired hydraulic results of the project include the following:

• Reducing peak flows on the Roseau River downstream of the Lake Bottom Project Area, at the Ross gage.

• Flexible and reasonable control of pool elevation during flooding events and during normal operation

• Reduce the downstream 100-YR floodplain footprint

Peak Flow Reduction The stated primary goal of this project is to reduce peak flows on the Roseau River. Allowing lower flows to pass and diverting early waters from the north and east will help accomplish this goal. Table 4 summarizes the results from a 100-Year 10-Day Spring Runoff Event.

Table 4 Modeled Peak Flow Rates at Ross Gage

Event Existing Peak Flow Proposed Peak Flow Percent Reduction 100-Year 10-Day 10,197 CFS 9,896 CFS 3.0%

Peak flows on the Roseau may be reduced by as much as 301 cfs or three percent during the 100-year 10-day event. A chart of the overall hydrograph at Ross can be seen in Figure 9. This hydrograph shows both the early water being bypassed and the late water being retained longer due to the gated outlet. The minimal reduction in peak flows is due primarily to the extreme size and volume of the analyzed 100-year event. Basically, the Lake Bottom project is flooded out and overtopped by this particular extreme event. However, more commonly occurring events such as a 10-year, 25-year, and even a 50-year frequency flood will be significantly reduced by the proposed project, and will be further evaluated during preliminary engineering.



Figure 9 100-Year 10-DayPeak Flows



Figure 10 HMS and RAS Comparison



Figure 11 Stage Storage Curve



Comparison of Peak Flow Reduction between Distributed Detention Study (DDS) and Current Project The Expanded Distributed Detention Strategy Study indicated that a significant potential peak flow reduction would occur for a 100-year 10-day event with the Lake Bottom Project in place. The results from above indicate only a three percent reduction in the 100-year 10 day event.

The DDS modeled the Lake Bottom Project assuming a dam would be built near the outlet and that the Lake Bottom would be filled by diverting more than 60,000 acre-feet until water overtopped the dam. The project considered in this concept report will operate in a much different manner due to lower assumed elevations for gated control. The current project allows for the river to bypass the Lake Bottom until a stage is reached where flows will start to be allowed to spill out from the main channel into the storage area. The embankment elevations for the proposed concept alternative are set at 1036’ and the 100 year floodplain elevation is in the 1038’ range. Because of cost factors and the overall project footprint required to store 60,000 or more acre-feet, the project size as currently envisioned is smaller in scale. Simply put, the elevation of the embankments at 1036’ are not high enough to contain the Roseau River during a 100-year flood.

Geotechnical The Roseau River Watershed is comprised of a large range of soil types and this is also true for the land near the Roseau Lake Bottom. The complete list of soil types within and surrounding the project area are displayed in Table 5. The majority of the area within the proposed embankment consists of Lallie mucky silt loam. This soil type is mainly found where depressions on lake plains occur and have very poor drainage. The soils mainly found under or near the potential embankment areas are Colvin silty clay loam, Borup silt loam, and Cathro muck. Soil types found within and near the project area are displayed in Figure 12. (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002)



Figure 12 Soil Types for Project Area



Table 5 Soil Map Unit Descriptions Map Unit

Map Unit Description Area in Project

Percent in Project

1405 Lallie mucky silt loam, map 18-22, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6167.9 30.45% I629A Colvin silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2141.1 10.57% 544 Cathro muck, map 18-22, 0 to 1 percent slopes 1887.9 9.32% 540 Seelyeville muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 1562.7 7.71%

I846A Borup silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1203.4 5.94% 569 Wabanica silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1093.4 5.40% I16F Fluvaquents,frequently flooded-Hapludolls complex, 0 to

30 percent slopes 917.5 4.53%

1154 Sax muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 850.8 4.20% 568 Zippel very fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 746.5 3.69%

I127A Percy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 630.8 3.11% 546 Lupton muck, map 22-30, 0 to 1 percent slopes 351.0 1.73%

I109A Fluvaquents, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded 264.6 1.31% I467A Bearden silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 259.0 1.28% I704A Glyndon very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 258.6 1.28% I110A Augsburg, Borup, and Colvin soils, very poorly drained,

0 to 1 percent slopes 253.8 1.25%

I82A Cathro muck, dense till, 0 to 1 percent slopes 246.9 1.22% 532 Sago muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 223.2 1.10% I84A Percy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, very cobbly 186.7 0.92%

I741A Boash clay loam, dense till, 0 to 2 percent slopes 158.4 0.78% I125A Skagen loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 118.7 0.59% 1182 Warroad fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 113.2 0.56% I79A Berner, Cathro, and Haug soils, ponded, 0 to 1 percent

slopes 111.9 0.55%

I682A Borup-Glyndon complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 109.4 0.54% I114A Foldahl fine sandy loam, dense till, 0 to 3 percent slopes 107.5 0.53% 563 Northwood muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 79.1 0.39%

I784A Rosewood fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 68.3 0.34% I103A Kratka fine sandy loam, dense till, 0 to 2 percent slopes 53.1 0.26% I86A Percy mucky loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 21.9 0.11%

I104A Strandquist loam, dense till, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.6 0.06% 1807 Cathro muck, ponded, map 22-30, 0 to 1 percent slopes 12.2 0.06% I83A Wildwood muck, dense till, 0 to 1 percent slopes 9.9 0.05% 1326 Augsburg and Wabanica soils, depressional, 0 to 1

percent slopes 9.0 0.04%

I117A Skagen loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, very cobbly 6.2 0.03% I101A Foxhome sandy loam, dense till, 0 to 3 percent slopes 5.6 0.03%



I106A Enstrom loamy fine sand, dense till, 0 to 3 percent slopes

4.6 0.02%

IWa Water 3.6 0.02% I95A Kratka and Strathcona soils, dense till, 0 to 1 percent

slopes 3.5 0.02%

I92A Grano clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.0 0.01%



Summary of Project Goals, Cost, and Financing



Recommendations This concept report has assessed the potential benefits of implementing the Roseau River Lake Bottom Project. Preliminary hydraulic analysis has shown that there is a reduction in peak flow down stream of the project site for a 100-year 10-day spring runoff event. These results are still conceptual and will need to be further refined through additional engineering efforts and through the Project Team Process. HDR recommends the following next steps to continue refining what the finished Roseau River Lake Bottom Project could look like and how it could operate:

• Continue developing the existing hydraulic models to be able to simulate multiple event frequencies and multiple operation scenarios. Develop a range of flood damage reduction benefits for all ranges of event frequencies.

• Continue with the Project Team Process to develop a project layout that all team members can live with and an operating plan that does not negatively affect any of the team members and landowners.

• Continue addressing permitting and funding concerns. • Present project concept to land owners within project site and located downstream of

project. • Conduct soil borings along length of proposed embankment as well as locations of

proposed structures.



Bibliography Environmental Data Access: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012, 10 17). Retrieved from

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Web site: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/customPHP/eda/stationInfo.php?ID=S000-115&ORG=MNPCA

Gupta, R. S. (2008). Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems, Third Edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

HDR Engineering, Inc. & Houston Engineering, Inc. (2013). Rosuea River Watershed District Expanded Distributed Detention Strategy. Roseau, MN Roseau River Watershed District.

HDR Engineering, Inc. (2008). Hay Creek Setback Levees and Norland Impoundment Final Engineer's Report. Roseau, MN: Roseau River Watershed District.

Hershfield, D. M. (1961). Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commere, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 40.

Huff, F. A., & Angel, J. R. (1992). Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey.

Miller, J. F. (1964). Two- to Ten-Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 49.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8 Version 2: Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA, National Weather Service.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release No. 55. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2002). Soil Survey of Roseau County, Minnesota. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2007). National Engineering Handbook, Part 654, Stream Restoration Design. Washington, D.C.: NRCS.

Roseau River Watershed District. (2011). Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program, Grant Application. MN DNR Waters.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - St. Paul District. (1990). Red River of the North: Unit Hydrograph Analysis. Davis, CA: Hydrologic Engineering Center.



U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. (2003). Northwest Minnesota 2002 Flood Damage Assessment.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. (2002). June 2002 Floods in the Red River of the North Basin in Northeastern North Dakota and Northwestern Minnesota.



Appendix A. STAR Value Worksheet

CONCEPT REPORT APPENDIX A DECEMBER 2015

Project Name: Step 2

Watershed District:

Project Location:

Estimated Total Cost: 15,000,000$

RRWMB Cost: 2,500,000$ CPI (1984=100) CPI (2015=100)

Year of Estimate: 2015 236.80 100.00

Adj. to SummaryAll Base Yr: 2000 172.20 72.72

Drainage Area (square miles) 1,085.0

Storage Volume(s): Acre-feet Inches

Adj. Storage

(ac-ft)

Drawdown 20,026 0.35 20,026

Gated (1) 0 0.00 0

Gated (2) 0 0.00 0Ungated (to emergency spillway) 2,373 0.04 2,373

Total Storage (8.1 inches Max.) 22,399 0.39 22,399

Volume Adjustment Factor 1.00 0

Est. of Ungated Detention Time Volume (ac-ft) Elevation (ft) Discharge (cfs)

Emergency Spillway 0 0

10% of Ungated 0 0

90% of Ungated Volume 0

Average Discharge (cfs) 0

Discharge in AF per day 0

Average Detention Time (days) not applicable

Detention Time:

Gated (1) from Operation plan 0.0

Gated (2) from Operation plan 0.0

UnGated (from Operation Plan or above) -7.1

Ungated Storage Offset 0.0

Average Time Interval between

Routed Site Peak and Red River Peak

(days). (Negative is ahead of peak, positive

is after peak) 5.0

Existing

Relative T 3.34

Calculation of Star Value

Routed Relative

T

Adj. Storage

(Ac-ft) Star Value

Drawdown Storage (30 - 3.40) 26.60 20,026 532,692

Gated (1) Storage (3.40 - 3.40) 0.00 0 0

Gated (2) Storage (3.40 - 3.40) 0.00 0 0

Ungated) Storage (0.91 - 3.40) -2.49 2,373 -5,902

Star Value 22,399 526,790

2015 dollars 2000 dollars

Total Cost per Star Value 28.47$ 20.71$

RRWMB Cost per Star Value 4.75$ 3.45$

Prepared By:

Source of Data: Concept Report

Frequency/Date of Preparation: 7-Dec-15

RRWMB Cost divided by STAR Value

Nate Dalager Enter name of preparer

Enter source data.

100yr 10day Enter frequency and date.

Enter ungated detention time. (Center of Mass to Center of mass)

Offset of center of mass of inflow hydrogragh to center of mass of storage.

Existing Relative T is based on the average

time interval between the routed site peak

flows and the RRN.

Routed relative T is the value of the

detention times computed using the

regression equations given in figure 3. The

Existing Relative T is subtracted from the

project Relative T.

STAR VALUE

Total Cost divided by STAR Value

Ratios of the Consumer price index read

from the CPI worksheet.

Enter the drainage area in square miles used to compute the runoff volume.

The adjusted storage is total storage is

multiplied by the Volume Adjustment Factor

which can reduce the storage. Storage is

removed 1st from the ungated storage, 2nd

from the gated (2) storage, 3rd from the

gated (1) storage and last from the

drawdown st

Note: this section is provided for reference

only. The values are not used in the

calculations.

Enter gated detention time for the 1st category of gated storage.

Enter gated detention time for the 2nd category of gated storage.

RRWD - Roseau Lake Bottom Project Enter Name of Watershed District.

North Central Roseau County Enter Project Location.

Enter the estimated project costs. These

are used to compute the cost per star value.

Star Value Computation Worksheet Enter values only in the cells that have been

shaded. All other values are computed from

these values.Red River Watershed Management Board

Post-Project to Roseau River Enter Project Name. (Status eg Step)

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

275,000

300,000

325,000

350,000

375,000

400,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Cu

mu

lati

ve V

olu

me

(ac

re-f

eet

)

Flo

w (

feet

3/s

eco

nd

)

Days

100-year 10-day Flow and Volume of Roseau River at Ross

Pre-Project Flow at Ross Post-Project Flow at Ross Pre-Project Cumulative Volume at Ross Post-Project Cumulative Volume at Ross

Center of mass = day 6.8 Volume (day 0 to day 9.3) = 6322 ac-ft

33.5 days (30 max)

Center of mass = day 47.4 Volume (day 17.2 to day 62.2) = 20,026 ac-ft

7.1 days

Pre-Lake Bottom Peak Flow 10,197cfs

Post-Lake Bottom Peak Flow = 9,896 cfs

Center of mass = day 13.9 Volume (day 9.3 to day 17.2) = 2,319 ac-ft

Manitoba

Minnesota

Humboldt

LakeBronson

Lancaster

Badger

SaintVincent

Kennedy

Greenbush

Halma

HallockRoseau

PATH: \\TRF-SRV1\GISPROJ\PROJECTS\RRWD GENERAL\LAKE BOTTOM\MAP_DOCS\MXD\REPORT_MAPS\STAR VALUE MAP.MXD - USER: CGIESEKE - DATE: 12/11/2015

ROSEAU LAKE BOTTOMTIME INTERVAL BETWEEN SITE PEAK FLOW & RED RIVER OF THE NORTH

RRWD LAKE BOTTOM CONCEPT REPORT

O0 10Miles

Interval Between Roseau River Peak at Rossand Red River Peak = 5 Days

Roseau River

Red River of the North

Two Rivers

Embankment US/Canada Border


Appendix B. Lessard Sams Application

CONCEPTUAL REPORT APPENDIX B DECEMBER 2015

Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage CouncilFiscal Year 2017 / ML 2016 Request for Funding

D ate: Aug ust 01, 2015

P ro g ram o r P ro ject T itle: Roseau Lake Rehabilitation

Fund s Req uested : $9,500,000

Manag er's Name: John Williams, Regional Wildlife Manager, DNR; Tracy Halstensgard Roseau River Watershed DistrictO rg anizatio n: MN Department of Natural Resources, Roseau River Watershed DistrictAd d ress : 2115 Birchmont Beach Road NEC ity: Bemidji, MN 56601O ff ice Numb er: (218)-308-2680Email: [email protected]

C o unty Lo catio ns: Roseau

Reg io ns in which wo rk wil l take p lace:

Northern Forest

Activity typ es:

Protect in EasementRestoreEnhanceProtect in Fee

P rio rity reso urces ad d ressed b y activity:

WetlandsHabitat

Abstract:

This multi-purpose project will partially restore a large drained lake, provide water level management capacity to substantially improvewildlife habitat conditions and provide flood damage reduction benefits, and will contribute to water quality improvements in theRoseau River.

Design and scope of work:

Roseau Lake was drained in the early 1900s when the Roseau River was channelized and dredged and associated ditch systems wereconstructed to increase agricultural production in the watershed. Prior to drainage, Roseau Lake provided excellent fish and waterfowlhabitat. After drainage, much of the lake basin was farmed for many year and produced crops in drier times, but production was lowand unreliable in wetter years. Over time, there has been recognition by local landowners that farming the lake bed would always betenuous and large portions of the lake basin became part of the Roseau Lake Wildlife Management Area in the 1960s. Interest in apartial restoration of the lake has grown in recent year because the DNR, the watershed district, local governments, and citizensrecognize that there are opportunities to develop a multipurpose project with significant wildlife habitat and flood damage reductionbenefits (see attached citizen's advisory report).

The project has two primary purposes: 1) To improve the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat in and surrounding the Roseau Lake basin area. A key objective of the projectis to provide migratory habitat (including an abundance of forage) for waterfowl and shorebirds in spring and in fall. 2) To effectively use the water storage capacity of the lake basin to reduce peak flows on the Roseau River downstream of the lake bedby 10% or more compared to current conditions as well as reduce the footprint of the 100-year floodplain.

Wildlife habitat benefits will be achieved by constructing a system of levees and water control structures to provide capacity to activelymanage water levels in the lake basin. This infrastructure will allow wildlife managers to manage lake levels throughout the year toachieve wildlife management objectives. Specifically, timely water level management in spring and fall will create conditions to provide

Page 1 o f 9

suitable forage in abundance for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, better management of water levels in the basinduring the growing season will enhance the relative value of surrounding grass cover for nesting and provide brood-rearing cover forwaterfowl and other waterbirds. Benefits to aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic mammals will accrue wheneverwater is present. Fish habitat on the river will improve as a result of features and operation that improve water quality, hydrologicconditions and the habitat corridor along the Roseau River.

At the same time, this infrastructure will provide water managers the ability to manipulate the timing of flood flows in the area tooptimize the water storage capacity of the lake bed to achieve flood damage reduction objectives. In its current state, the Roseau Lakebasin area floods in the early portion of the flood hydrograph such that flood storage is unavailable when the flood peak passesthrough the area. Flood damage reduction benefits will be achieved by altering the timing of water storage in the Lake Basin area sothe available storage in the lake bed is more effectively used to reduce peak flows downstream.

The project has secondary benefits including improved hydrologic conditions in the Roseau River which will contribute to improvedwater quality, stream stability, and fish habitat and will also benefit rare plant communities in the Big Swamp area downstream. Theproject is consistent with the watershed plan and will compliment other ongoing work in the watershed to improve fish and wildlifehabitat, improve water quality, and reduce flood damage.

Crops:

Will there be planting of corn or any crop on OHF land purchased or restored in this program - No

How does the request address MN habitats that have: historical value to f ish and wildlif e, wildlif especies of greatest conservation need, MN County Biological Survey data, and/or rare, threatenedand endangered species inventories:

Roseau Lake was historically an important wildlife lake providing a diversity of habitats for many aquatic mammals, birds, amphibians,and reptiles. The basin area is now inundated on a nearly annual basis and there are large water level fluctuations which createdegraded habitat conditions and minimal shallow lake functions for wildlife. The habitat within the lake and adjacent uplands aredegraded due to uncontrolled water level fluctuations. The flashy nature of flooding in the basin has greatly diminished habitat qualityand wildlife production (e.g., ground nesting by birds) in and near the basin.

Since the project will reduce downstream peak flows, it will also benefit habitat in the Big Swamp area in western Roseau County. Thisvast area is characterized by a mosaic of shallow wetlands, wet meadows, lowland brush, and aspen. Over the last few decades, nativevegetation in this area has been degraded by excessive duration, frequency, and depth of flooding. Reed canary grass and hybridcattail have invaded such sites, thus reducing habitat production over a few thousand acres. Moderating such flooding will reduceimpacts to existing native plant and animal populations and allow restoration of native vegetation.

What is the nature of urgency and why it is necessary to spend public money f or this work as soon aspossible:

A watershed team has developed the concept for this multipurpose project. LSOHC funds will ensure that important wildlife habitatelements are incorporated into the project. Also, Laws of Minnesota 2015, First Special Session, Chapter 4, Section 140. WATERRETENTION PROJECTS provides a window of opportunity for this request.

Describe the science based planning and evaluation model used:

DNR wildlife has identified this project as a regional priority. This project is identified in the Roseau River Watershed Comprehensiveplan. The RRWMB Distributed Detention Study has identified this project as the most effective place to store water in the RRWD.

Which sections of the Minnesota Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan are applicable to thisproject:

H4 Restore and protect shallow lakesH7 Keep water on the landscape

Which other plans are addressed in this proposal:

Long Range Duck Recovery PlanNorth American Waterfowl Management Plan

Page 2 o f 9

Which LSOHC section priorit ies are addressed in this proposal:No rthern Fo rest:

Protect shoreland and restore or enhance critical habitat on wild rice lakes, shallow lakes, cold water lakes, streams and rivers, andspawning areas

Relationship to other f unds:

Environmental and Natural Resource Trust FundClean Water FundFlood Hazard Mitigation Program

This project will provide funds for permanent habitat protection and enhancement to compliment expected flood hazard mitigationprogram funding. The watershed district will request funds from this program for this project. In addition, a proposal is being submittedto the LCCMR for a complimentary project which will develop a targeted implementation plan to improve water quality in the lake'swatershed. This targeted implementation plan will provide the mechanism to leverage Clean Water funds granted to the local soil andwater conservation district.

How does this proposal accelerate or supplement your current ef f orts in this area:

The watershed team has developed this concept and is at the stage of evaluating various project alternatives which have a range ofabilities to meet wildlife habitat objectives. Securing LSOHC funds will accelerate project development and ensure that habitatenhancement components of this project are refined and incorporated into the final project design for implementation. Projectpartners will continue to seek funding from other sources and securing these state funds will provide match that may be needed.

Describe the source and amount of non-OHF money spent f or this work in the past:

Appro priatio nYear S o urce Amo unt

FY 15 & 16 Mdtn Wk G rp & RRWD $128,000

How will you sustain and/or maintain this work af ter the Outdoor Heritage Funds are expended:

The Roseau River Watershed District will be primarily responsible for all future maintenance of this project's infrastructure under a jointagreement with MN DNR. The Watershed District is authorized by law to complete long-term maintenance of this project (Minnesota Statutes 103D). Habitat enhancements within the rehabilitated lake basin will be the responsibility of the Mn DNR Section of Wildlife as part ofongoing habitat maintenance on the Wildlife Management Area.

Explain the things you will do in the f uture to maintain project outcomes:

Year S o urce o f Funds S tep 1 S tep 2 S tep 32018-2023Mo nito ring Lo ca l RRWD Levy & DNR Mo nito r & Act a s Needed

Activity Details:

If funded, this proposal will meet all applicable criteria set forth in MS 97A.056 - Yes

Will local government approval be sought prior to acquisition - Yes

Is the land you plan to acquire free of any other permanent protection - Yes

Is this land currently open for hunting and fishing - Yes

All state lands (WMA) within the project footprint are open for public hunting. The Roseau River is open to fishing through boataccesses.

Will the land be open for hunting and fishing after completion - Yes

Most state lands in the project footprint will likely remain open to public hunting. A portion of the lake basin and some associateduplands may be designated as a waterfowl refuge for feeding and resting to enhance overall opportunities for recreational hunting andbird watching on lands within the area which are open tp public hunting. All lands acquired for the project in fee title will be open for

Page 3 o f 9

hunting and fishing where applicable. All private lands secured though easements will be open at the discretion of the landowner.

Will the eased land be open for public use - Yes

Only if permitted by the landowner.

Is the land you plan to acquire free of any other permanent protection - Yes

Will restoration and enhancement work follow best management practices including MS 84.973 Pollinator Habitat Program - Yes

Is the activity on permanently protected land per 97A.056, subd 13(f), tribal lands, and/or public waters per MS 103G .005, Subd. 15 - Yes(WMA, P rivate Land , P ub lic Waters , Ro seau R iver Watershed D istrict)

Accomplishment T imeline:

Activity Appro ximate Date Co mpletedPre limina ry Eng ineering June 2016Enviro nmenta l review a nd permitting Fa ll 2016Fina l Eng ineering Fa ll 2016 - Spring 2017O pera ting pla n 2017Hea ring s 2016Co nstructio n pha se 1 2016 - 17Co nstructio n pha se 2 2017 - 18Po st Co nstructio n Mo nito ring 2025Acquis itio n 2017

Federal Funding:

Do you anticipate federal funds as a match for this program - No

Outcomes:P ro g rams in the no rthern fo rest reg io n:

Improved availability and improved condition of habitats that have experienced substantial decline The site will be monitored through ajoint 5 year monitoring plan between the RRWD and DNR. Monitoring will include an evaluation of bird species use; plant community condition;water quality; water quantity as measured against project outcomes and current conditions.

Page 4 o f 9

Budget Spreadsheet

T o tal Amo unt o f Req uest: $9,500,000

Bud g et and C ash Leverag e

Budg et Name LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lPerso nnel $0 $0 $0Co ntra cts $6,000,000 $3,000,000 WD; RRWMB; USDA $9,000,000Fee Acquis itio n w/ PILT $0 $0 $0Fee Acquis itio n w/o PILT $2,000,000 $1,000,000 WD; RRWMB; USDA $3,000,000Ea sement Acquis itio n $1,000,000 $1,000,000 WD; RRWMB: USDA $2,000,000Ea sement Stewa rdship $0 $0 $0Tra ve l $0 $0 $0Pro fess io na l Services $500,000 $500,000 RRWMB $1,000,000Direct Suppo rt Services $0 $0 $0DNR La nd Acquis itio n Co sts $0 $0 $0Ca pita l Equipment $0 $0 $0O ther Equipment/To o ls $0 $0 $0Supplies/Ma teria ls $0 $0 $0DNR IDP $0 $0 $0

To ta l $9,500,000 $5,500,000 - $15,000,000

Amount of Request: $9,500,000Amount of Leverage: $5,500,000Leverage as a percent of the Request: 57.89%

Page 5 o f 9

Output Tables

T ab le 1a. Acres b y Reso urce T yp e

T ype Wetlands Pra iries Fo rest Habitats T o ta lResto re 0 0 0 0 0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 0 270 270Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 0 1,000 1,000Pro tect in Ea sement 0 0 0 0 0Enha nce 3,000 0 0 1,900 4,900

To ta l 3,000 0 0 3,170 6,170

T ab le 2. T o tal Req uested Fund ing b y Reso urce T yp e

T ype Wetlands Pra iries Fo rest Habitats T o ta lResto re $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Enha nce $0 $0 $0 $8,230,000 $8,230,000

To ta l $0 $0 $0 $9,500,000 $9,500,000

T ab le 3. Acres within each Eco lo g ical S ectio n

T ype Metro /Urban Fo rest/Pra irie S E Fo rest Pra irie No rthern Fo rest T o ta lResto re 0 0 0 0 0 0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 0 0 270 270Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000Pro tect in Ea sement 0 0 0 0 0 0Enha nce 0 0 0 0 4,900 4,900

To ta l 0 0 0 0 6,170 6,170

T ab le 4. T o tal Req uested Fund ing within each Eco lo g ical S ectio n

T ype Metro /Urban Fo rest/Pra irie S E Fo rest Pra irie No rthern Fo rest T o ta lResto re $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Enha nce $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,230,000 $8,230,000

To ta l $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,500,000 $9,500,000

T ab le 5. Averag e C o st p er Acre b y Reso urce T yp e

T ype Wetlands Pra iries Fo rest HabitatsResto re $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $1,000Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $1,000Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $0 $0Enha nce $0 $0 $0 $4,332

Page 6 o f 9

T ab le 6. Averag e C o st p er Acre b y Eco lo g ical S ectio n

T ype Metro /Urban Fo rest/Pra irie S E Fo rest Pra irie No rthern Fo restResto re $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Enha nce $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,680

T arg et Lake/S tream/River Feet o r Miles

3

Page 7 o f 9

Parcel List

Section 1 - Restore / Enhance Parcel List

Ro seau

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n?Sta te Wildlife Ma na g ementArea La nds 4,900 $0 Yes

Section 2 - Protect Parcel List

Ro seau

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n? Hunting ? Fishing ?Priva te Pa rce ls - WDAcquis itio n 1,000 $0 No Full No t Applica ble

Priva te Pa rce ls - WMAa cquis itio n 270 $0 No Full No t Applica ble

Section 2a - Protect Parcel with Bldgs

No parcels with an activity type protect and has buildings.

Section 3 - Other Parcel Activity

No parcels with an other activity type.

Page 8 o f 9


Appendix C. Examples of Previous Works Completed

CONCEPTUAL REPORT APPENDIX C DECEMBER 2015

cgieseke

Text Box

Historical Project Concepts

cgieseke

Text Box

Existing Pre-project Lidar

cgieseke

Text Box

Updated Project Lidar

cgieseke

Text Box

Public Waters for Project Area and Upstream of Project Area


Appendix D. Red River Watershed Management Board Evaluation Worksheet for Flood

Damage Reduction Projects

CONCEPTUAL REPORT APPENDIX D DECEMBER 2015

roseau river lake bottom project bottom_step 1 submittal_c… · one of the project goals is to...

Documents