Red River Basin Detention Planning

14th AnnualInternational Legislative

ForumJune 27, 2014

AgendaLong Term Flood Solutions Plan for the Basin

Planning for the 20% Flow Reduction

Distributed Detention Strategies for Individual Watershed Districts

Halstad Upstream Retention Study

Water Quality Improvement Potential

A plan developed by the Red River Basin Commission to reduce future flood damages by reducing flows

Accomplished primarily by detaining/retaining water upstream

Requires construction of multiple storage facilities (impoundments) distributed throughout the basin

Basin wide Flow Reduction Strategy

Adopting a Goal

• Primary Criteria• Set a goal high enough to significantly reduce flood

damages • Set it low enough to be considered doable and reasonably

foreseeable

• Initial Goal of 20% peak flow reduction along the entire length of the River• Would likely have prevented the 1997 disaster in Grand

Forks / East Grand Forks• Considered doable by the committee, which included

engineers representing tributary watersheds

• Not a “Make or Break” goal• Lesser reductions will provide incremental benefits• Greater reductions will increase benefits

Mainstem Hydraulic Model

• How much storage would be required??• No suitable hydraulic

model of the entire Red River Mainstem existed in 2005 to answer that question

• RRBC FDR Committee, with assistance from consultants on contract, set out to develop a model…

• That could dynamically account for both flow and storage across the broad valley as the flood wave moves north

The Basin Commission next encouraged each water district to identify storage it could build to meet its flow reduction allocation

Existing hydrologic models (where available) were used by local water management engineers to prepare revised tributary hydrographs to the Red River that would result from the planned storage

Identifying Storage Potential

• 26 storage sites were identified to meet the 20% reduction goal at Wahpeton including one (North Ottawa) that has been constructed since 1997 and one hypothetical site in South Dakota.

The constructed storage volume would be 125,000 ac-ft of which 101,000 ac-ft would be gate controlled.

This compares to a flow reduction allocation of 98,000 ac-ft.

This suggests that total constructed storage may need to be about 25% greater than the flow reduction allocation or about equal to the gate controlled portion as expected.

BOIS DE SIOUX WATERSHED2010 Flow Reduction Strategy

1997 Spring FloodPlanned by WSDs Original Allocation

Peak Peak PeakFlow Flow Volume Volume Flow Volume Volume

Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction ReductionReduction Reduction Reduction Focus

Tributarie Areas cfs % % acft % % acft

BdS R @ White Rock 1048 13% 16% 51219 20% 20% 61760 Store early water

Rabbit R @ TH 75 ung 1425 31% 39% 47639 35% 26% 24377 Peak flow reduction

BdS ungaged 0 0% 0% 0 13% 9% 12119 No reduction

Ottertail R @ Orwell 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 No reduction

Ottertail ung 500 13% 12% 7217 13% 12% 7217 Peak flow reduction

Wildrice ND @ Abercrombie 3150 32% 6% 23702 35% 17% 57908 Peak flow reduction

Fargo ungaged 3000 13% 13% 30433 13% 13% 30433 Store late water

Sheyenne R @ Harwood 2401 23% 11% 68395 23% 11% 68395 Peak flow reduction

Rush R @ Amenia 508 35% 13% 4324 35% 13% 4324 Peak flow reduction

Buffalo R @ Dilworth 2549 30% 17% 36091 35% 17% 38158 Peak flow reduction

Wild Rice MN @ Hendrum 2315 23% 20% 76545 35% 20% 74385 Peak flow reduction

Halstad ung 7500 13% 13% 81002 13% 13% 81002 Store late water

Goose R @ Hillsboro 2820 35% 16% 35356 35% 16% 35356 Peak flow reduction

Marsh R nr Shelly 135 3% 8% 6819 51% 18% 15247 Peak flow reduction

Sand Hill R @ Climax 43 1% 18% 19184 35% 21% 22161 Peak flow reduction

Red Lake R @ Crookston 9507 33% 25% 245384 35% 13% 119097 Peak flow reduction

RLR ung 1600 12% 10% 11427 12% 10% 11427 Store late water

GF ungaged 4400 12% 10% 32015 12% 10% 32015 Store late water

Turtle R nr Arvilla 90 10% 13% 4615 10% 13% 4615 Store late water

Forest R @ Minto 300 14% 7% 5875 14% 7% 5875 Store late water

Snake R ung 1334 24% 16% 20210 16% 15% 17128 Store late water

Middle R @ Argyle 751 20% 13% 8371 35% 23% 15067 Store late water

Park R @ Grafton 2422 47% 31% 40739 35% 20% 26462 Peak flow reduction

Tamarac R ung 1150 24% 13% 11533 13% 12% 7179 Store late water

Drayton ung 1370 8% 10% 22208 8% 10% 22208 Store late water

S Br Two R @ Lake Bronson 503 12% 26% 21735 27% 14% 15208 Store late water

Tongue R @ Akra 50 7% 4% 1580 7% 4% 1580 Store late water

Pembina R @ Neche 1900 13% 9% 51113 13% 9% 51113 Peak flow reduction

Emerson ung 3000 7% 7% 23364 7% 7% 23364 Store late water

Average/Total 18% 14% 988094 22% 13% 885177

Completing and refining the tributary flow reduction plans clearly required new and improved hydrologic models for many tributary areas.

Recently collected LIDAR data greatly improves potential model accuracy and detail.

New HEC-HMS models are nearly completed using consistent and coordinated methodologies for all US tributaries.

New HEC-HMS models are being developed north to the border and beyond as LIDAR data becomes available.

Improved Hydrologic Models

Using the new models, watershed are identifying sites that would meet their allocated flow reductions.

Refined Tributary flow Reduction Plans

Tributary Distributed Detention Planning

• Background Information• RRBMI LiDAR Multiple Partners, Led by IWI

• Phase 1 - HEC-HMS Existing Conditions Communities of Fargo and Moorhead

• Site Identification Process and Level of Detail

• Minnesota Tributary Expanded Distributed Detention Strategies

• Funded By: Red River Watershed Management Board (Minnesota)Red River Basin CommissionBuffalo-Red River Watershed District

• North Dakota Tributary Comprehensive Detention Plans

• Funded By: Red River Joint Water Resource District (ND)Local Water Resource DistrictsNorth Dakota State Water Commission

Detention Site Examples – On-Channel and Off-Channel Options

Maple River DamMaple River Water Resource District (North Dakota)

Controls 815 square miles60,000(+) Ac-Ft of un-gated storage

North Ottawa Impoundment ProjectBois de Sioux Watershed District (Minnesota)

Controls 75 square miles16,000 Ac-Ft of gated storage

MN Expanded Distributed Detention Strategy – WRWD Example

Red River Basin CommissionBasinwide Flow Reduction Strategy

Peak Flow Goal: 35% ReductionPeak Flow Obtained: 29% Reduction

• Approximately 25 Locations

• 300K A-F Total• 157K A-F Gated• 143K A-F Ungated

Red River Basin CommissionBasinwide Flow Reduction Strategy

Peak Flow Goal: 35% ReductionPeak Flow Obtained: 36% Reduction

Minnesota Funding

• IWI Project Planning Tool Development - $180,000

• Distributed Detention Plan Development - $480,000

Total -$660,000

Funded By: Red River Watershed Management Board$617,000

Buffalo-Red River Watershed District$21,600

Red River Basin Commission (FMDA)$21,600

ND Watershed Detention Study Funding

• TOTAL COST $1,700,000

• NDSWC (50%) $850,000

• RRJWRD (32.5% - 50%) $710,000

• Local (0% - 17.5%) $140,000

RRJWRD Sponsored

Locally Sponsored

Methodology –

• Site Identification Criteria• Control minimum of 20 square miles• Avoid impacts to residential structures /

infrastructure• Store a minimum of 3 inches of runoff• Avoid mainstem locations in lower 2/3 of watershed• Primarily select off-channel & stream locations• Reasonable levee heights & inundation impacts

• Modeling Assumptions• Gated with E.S. 5 feet below top of levee• Dry storage, no conservation pools

ND Comprehensive Detention Plan

• Elm RiverTraill Co. WRDCass Co. Joint WRD

• Rush RiverCass Co. Joint WRD

• Maple RiverMaple River WRD

• Lower SheyenneCass Co. Joint WRD

• Wild Rice RiverRichland Co. WRDCass Co. Joint WRD

ND Comprehensive Detention Plan – Upstream Watersheds

ND Comprehensive Detention Plan – Upstream Watersheds

100 ND Detention Site Options Identified• 7 Elm River

• 3 Rush River

• 40 Maple River

• 20 Lower Sheyenne

• 30 Wild Rice

Summary of Results for 100-yr Snowmelt• Tributary peak reductions in excess of 35% possible

• Flood volume reductions in excess of 20% possible

• LTFS tributary goals can be achieved

• Off-channel sites needed to control peaks in many cases

Halstad Upstream Retention Study

HEC-RAS Red River Mainstem Hydraulic

Model

Develop Halstad Upstream Retention

Strategy

HEC-RAS Red River Mainstem Hydraulic

Model

ND Comprehensive Detention Plans

MN Expanded Distributed Detention

Strategy

Halstad Upstream Retention Study Scope

• To provide information to advance the Red River

Basin Commission’s Long Term Flood Solutions

Report

• To provide assistance to the Fargo-Moorhead

Diversion Authority on how to prioritize/allocate the

approved $25 Million in Detention Funding

• NOT to determine how upstream detention

would alter current Fargo-Moorhead Metro

Diversion Design

Halstad Upstream Retention Study Background

Related Studies Utilized• HEC-RAS Model Development (Phase 7) – Fargo-Moorhead Metro

Project

• Phase 1 - HEC-HMS Existing Conditions – US Army Corps of Engineers

Basinwide Feasibility Study

Detention Sites Provided By:• MN Expanded Distributed Detention Strategy

• Funded By: Red River Watershed Management Board (Minnesota)

Red River Basin CommissionBuffalo-Red River Watershed District

• ND Comprehensive Detention Plan• Funded By: Red River Joint Water Resource

District (ND)Local Water Resource

DistrictsNorth Dakota State Water

Commission

Halstad Upstream Retention Study Assumptions

• Sites Identified for Local Benefits First• Sites Identified by Local Watershed Districts & Water

Resource Districts• Local Benefits First• Sites Initially Empty (No Normal Pool)• Drawdown of Gated Storage Not Considered

• All Detention Sites Built • Full Implementation Required to

Generate Reported Benefits• Assumes full implementation

• Conceptual Impoundment Locations• No Landowner Involvement• Ability to Implement• No Cost Evaluations• Limited Site Data

• Modeling based on synthetic 100-year flood scenario• Based on Uniform/Standardized Runoff Assumption• Non-uniform runoff expected during actual events• Drawdown of Gated Storage Not Considered

• Modeling completed based on the existing Red River

condition • Potential changes to FM Diversion Project not evaluated

Watershed

Contributing Area

Contributing Area of

Proposed Sites Number of Sites Included

Total Utilized Storage* Gated Storage*

Utilized Ungated Storage*

Event Peak Inundation

Area

Square Miles Square Miles Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acres

Bois De Sioux 1,850 589 22 106,200 88,100 18,100 20,130

Otter Tail 1,380 44 1 6,400 2,500 3,900 1,530

Upper Red River 486 159 4 37,800 29,300 8,500 9,340

Wild Rice (ND) 2,022 345 13 75,600 64,700 10,900 17,870

Maple/Rush/Sheyenne 5,397 506 26 120,500 98,800 21,700 20,050

Buffalo 995 198 6 37,000 25,400 11,600 11,140

Elm (Red River Ungaged) 478 (255) 109 3 23,900 18,900 5,000 4,780

Wild Rice (MN) 1,616 589 17 123,700 101,000 22,700 18,340

Marsh 398 115 4 28,200 26,800 1,400 4,590

Totals 14,622 2,654 96 559,300 455,500 103,800 107,770

*Presented storage volumes correlate to runoff volume detained during the analyzed 4-day Initial Melt Progression Event.

Halstad Upstream Retention Strategy

One Scenario Resulting in a 20% Peak Flow Reduction96 Locally Identified Sites

• 23% Peak Flow Reduction

• 10% Flood Volume Reduction

Halstad Upstream Retention Study Summary

Available for Download at www.redriverbasincommission.

org

• Red River mainstem 20% peak flow reduction is attainable for the analyzed event

• Differing events will result in varying levels of flow reduction benefit

• Estimated Stage Reduction of 1.0’ at Halstad, MN (1.3’ at Fargo, ND)

• 96 Locally Identified Sites were used to for the proposed HUR Scenario

• Stores a portion of runoff from 2,650 square miles• 560,000 Acre-Feet of Storage (455,000 Acre-Feet Gated)

• 107,800 Acres Inundated within Storage Sites (170± Sections)

• Conceptual Locations

• Standardized Melt Progression Event represents one scenario to produce a 100-year flood at Fargo, ND

• Varying events may also result in a 100-year flood at Fargo, ND

• Provides tools necessary to evaluate specific projects for regional performance

• The HUR Study does NOT evaluate retention as an alternative to the current F-M Metro Flood Control Project

• Funding Availability• Magnitude of funds need to fully implement• Funding eligibility (Project Development, Land Acquisition, etc…)• Non-traditional funding partners (FM Diversion Authority, Farm

Bill, etc…)

• Land Acquisition Methods – Site Specific Location

• Education• Proactive Acquisition• Condemnation

• Locally Acceptable vs Permit-ability• Location, location, location…

Implementation Hurdles

Basinwide Strategy... Next Steps

Phase I – Upstream of Halstad, MN

Completed by RRBC/FMDA

Phase II - Halstad, MN to International Border

To be completed by USACE Basinwide Feasibility Study

Phase III - International Border to Lake Winnipeg

To be completed by ???

What can we do to maximize Nutrient Capture at Impoundment Sites

• Minnesota, North Dakota and Manitoba all developing Nutrient Reduction Strategies

• MPCA released Nutrient Reduction Strategy

• Non-point Sources contribute 82% Phosphorus and 91% Nitrogen

• Phosphorus Reduction Goals for Red River will be similar to Mississippi River Basin 45%

Design, Construct and Operate Treatment Cells within North Ottawa Impoundment with Bois De Sioux WD and their engineer Charlie Anderson, WSN

Develop surface water monitoring protocol to measure nutrient loading and removal effectiveness

Harvest cattails in individual cells at different times of the year and optimize nutrient capture and removal

Evaluate potential uses of cattails with Dr. Dan Svedarsky , University of MN - Crookston

North Ottawa Project

• Incorporate Detailed Monitoring System

• North Ottawa Unique “Field Scale” Experimental Opportunity • “Closed System” Allows Detailed Upstream, Within Treatment Cell, and Downstream Monitoring

• Development of Phosphorus Budget, Measurable/Quantifiable Results

• Develop and maximize large scale Nutrient Reduction Strategy

• Utilizing land already set aside for Flood Control Purposes

• Use of treatment cells as a strategy to maximize Nutrient Reduction in High Loading Watersheds

• Scalable, potentially significant Phosphorus Reduction Tool

• 600 acres cattail harvested will remove 6600 pounds phosphorus,100% average load 75 square mile watershed above North Ottawa

• This project is funded by MPCA 319 Fundand Mn Legislative/Citizen Commission onMinnesota Resources, future funding requests will be submitted to continue this work