brandt impoundment outlet ditch establishement … survey report (id 5306).pdfpreliminary survey...

Engineering Inc. 324 2nd Street East

Thief River Falls, Minnesota 56701

BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT OUTLET DITCH ESTABLISHEMENT

PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT

PROPOSED AS: RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT DITCH #15

RLWD Project No. 175 HDR Project No. 186028

Red Lake Watershed District Ditch #15 Red Lake Watershed District

Preliminary Survey Report ii September 2012

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 25309 on September 7, 2012.

Nathan P. Dalager, P.E.

License No. 25309

9/7/12

Date

HDR Engineering, Inc. 324 2nd Street E Thief River Falls, MN 56701


Preliminary Survey Report iii September 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 RLWD PROJECT 60 ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PETITION......................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 DITCH ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS ................................................................................. 3 2.0 HISTORY .................................................................................................... 5

2.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 ADJACENT LEGAL DITCH SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 5 2.3 CONCERNS ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 PROJECT INVESTIGATION .................................................................. 7

3.1 SURVEYS ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 ALIGNMENT AND STATIONING ....................................................................................... 7 3.3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 HYDRAULICS ................................................................................................................. 12 3.6 CULVERT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 14 3.7 RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................................................................................................ 19 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..........20

4.1 DESIGN GOALS ............................................................................................................. 20 4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 20 4.3 CHANNEL DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 20 4.4 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 22 4.5 PROPOSED DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 24 4.6 SIDE INLETS/APPROACHES .......................................................................................... 24 4.7 SPOIL PLACEMENT ....................................................................................................... 24 4.8 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.9 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ...................................................................................... 26 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...............28

5.1 ADEQUACY OF OUTLET ................................................................................................ 28 5.2 BENEFITED AREA ......................................................................................................... 29 5.3 PERMITS & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 32 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND USE CRITERIA .................................................................. 32 6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ..................................................................33

6.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 33

APPENDICES Appendix A. Project 60 Information A Appendix B. Petition B


Preliminary Survey Report iv September 2012

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Adjacent Ditch Lengths and Drainage Areas ................................................................................. 5

Table 2 Hydrologic Data Summary .............................................................................................................. 10

Table 3 Design Flow Rates for RLWD Ditch #15 ................................................................................... 12

Table 4 Hydraulic Analysis Results for RLWD Ditch #15 ...................................................................... 13

Table 5 Culvert Analysis Results .................................................................................................................. 16

Table 6 Culvert Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 18

Table 7 Right of Way ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 8: Alternative 2 Probable Cost ............................................................................................................ 26

Table 9: Alternative 3 Probable Cost ............................................................................................................ 27

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 ........................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 5: HY8 Program Figures..................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6: RLWD Ditch #15 Profile .............................................................................................................. 21

Figure 7: Typical Cross Section (Alternative 2) ........................................................................................... 22

Figure 8: Optional Ditch Alignment Straightening Locations .................................................................. 23

Figure 9: Existing Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 10: RLWD Runoff Timing Zones..................................................................................................... 30

Figure 11: CD2 Benefitted area and Section Information ......................................................................... 31


Preliminary Survey Report 1 September 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Red Lake Watershed District (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-



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 1999. 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 2007. 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.



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 2.

1.3 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).



FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP



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 360th 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 360th 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 360th 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 2 100 10.7

CD 66 45 6.4



FIGURE 2: DRAINAGE AREA MAP



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. 0+00 is located at 360th Ave NW, approximately 0.5 miles west of the confluence of CD 2 and CD 66. The report stationing begins at Sta. 0+00 and terminates at Sta. 706+55, 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.



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.



FIGURE 3: ALIGNMENT AND STATIONING



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 2.20

10-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 2012. 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.



FIGURE 4: HYDROLOGIC MODEL



TABLE 3 DESIGN FLOW RATES FOR RLWD DITCH #15

Station Location Drainage

Area (Sq. Mi.)

2-Year Design Flow

(CFS)

10-Year Design Flow

(CFS)

706+55 Brandt Impoundment Outlet 24 118 162

540+02 Highway 75 29.4 193 368

297+50 Highway 21 35.4 276 596

105+00 Highway 20 39.6 328 748

20+90 CD 66 Junction 87.1 465 1134

3.5 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 110th St NW or CSAH 20 may be considered.



TABLE 4 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR RLWD DITCH #15

Station Location Existing

Slope (%)

Proposed Slope (%)

Existing Bottom Width (FT)

Peak Inflows (CFS)

Capacity (CFS)

2-YR

10-YR Existing 12'

Bottom 15'

Bottom

15' Bottom & 1' Berm

15' Bottom & 2' Berm

0+00 - 20+90 0+00 to Jct CD66 0.026 0.026 20.31 465 1134 1296 1405 1405 1699 2029 20+90 - 51+84

Jct CD66 to 350th Ave NW 0.058 0.058 12.19 397 941 670 1028 1132 1436 1785

52+27 -104+63

350th Ave NW to CSAH 20 0.119 0.119 12.31 328 748 1163 1363 1504 1920 2399

105+43 -201+33

CSAH 20 to 110th ST NW 0.058 0.051 13.66 328 748 393 330 374 532 ~748

201+86 -255+63

110th ST NW to 320th Ave NW 0.072 0.085 14.05 328 748 646 730 815 1089 1411

256+29 -295+92

320th Ave NW to CSAH 21 0.109 0.036 14.82 276 596 627 272 309 441 601

296+90 -346+33

CSAH 21 to 310th Ave SW 0.001 0.054 14.92 276 596 39 458 515 707 935

346+83 -404+60

310+ Ave SW 110th ST SW 0.107 0.063 13.69 276 596 824 727 809 1064 1362

405+61 -476+82

110th ST SW to 290th Ave SW 0.062 0.114 13.72 276 596 334 580 655 913 1224

477+31 -539+07

290th Ave SW to Hwy 75 0.135 0.135 13.51 193 368 683 556 630 893 1212

540+50 - 706+55

Hwy 75 to Brandt Impoundment 0.100 0.100 6.0 118 162

*See Below N/A N/A N/A N/A

Orange Shading = Reach does not meet design goals

*The channel reach between Sta 540+50 to 706+55 (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.



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 201+71 and 255+96). 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 537+75. It appears that the bridges are weight restricted private accesses. The Culvert Schedule (Table 6) provides recommendations regarding each bridge.



FIGURE 5: HY8 PROGRAM FIGURES

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Crossing - STA 105+30 EX., Design Discharge - 747.9 cfsCulvert - 138"X88"79' , Culvert Discharge - 747.9 cfs

Elev

ation

(ft)

Station (ft)

Critical

Profile

Tailwater

Headwater

Streambed



TABLE 5 CULVERT ANALYSIS RESULTS

Sta.

Peak Inflow (CFS)

Existing Proposed

2-YR

10-YR

Road Crest

El. Existing Inlet

El. Outlet

El. Capacity

(CFS) Peak WSE

Free- board

Proposed Addition

Inlet El.

Outlet El.

Capacity (CFS)

Peak WSE

Free- board

0+00 465 1134 848 10'x9' RC BOX (3) 835.66 835.56 2059 844.51 3.49 None n/a n/a 2059 844.51 3.49

39+00 397 941 848 BRIDGE 839.48 839.46 660 849.25 -1.25 3-84" CSP 837.31 837.26 1028 847.71 0.29

52+32 397 941 848 168"x107" RC-A 838.11 838.11 712 849.25 -1.25 60" CSP 838.11 838.11 1012 847.76 0.24

76+50 397 941 851 BRIDGE 841.03 841.00 1000 850 1.00 Leave in Place 840.80 840.72 1087 850.03 0.97

105+30 328 748 855 138"x88" RC-A (2) 844.24 844.39 1364 851.4 3.60 None n/a n/a 1364 851.40 3.60

201+71 328 748 858 12'x5' RC BOX (2) 849.91 849.90 1073 856.13 1.87 24" CSP 849.15 849.05 1084 856.11 1.89

255+96 276 596 860 12'x5' RC BOX (2) 854.04 853.89 979 859.04 0.96 24" CSP 853.65 853.55 994 858.99 1.01

295+92 276 596 866 122"x78" RC-A (2) 858.68 858.51 479 866.6 -0.60

36" Steel Casing 855.45 855.35 936 863.78 2.22

346+20 276 596 866 12'x5' RC BOX (2) 857.36 857.14 530 866.14 -0.14 None n/a n/a 690 865.29 0.71

404+60 276 596 874 122"x78" RC-A (2) 866.07 865.53 805 871.92 2.08

Lower Existing 862.32 862.06 805 868.58 5.42



Sta.

Peak Inflow (CFS)

Existing Proposed

2-YR

10-YR

Road Crest

El. Existing Inlet

El. Outlet

El. Capacity

(CFS) Peak WSE

Free- board

Proposed Addition

Inlet El.

Outlet El.

Capacity (CFS)

Peak WSE

Free- board

476+82 276 596 878 14'x4' RC BOX (2) 870.52 870.48 722 877.14 0.86 None n/a n/a 722 877.14 0.86

534+75 193 368 885 BRIDGE - 20' SPAN 877.02 877.01 437 883.36 1.64 None 877.02 877.01 426 883.46 1.54

539+07 193 368 886 72" RCP (4) 879.29 878.96 1000 883.06 2.94 None n/a n/a 1000 883.06 2.94

540+50 193 368 888 10'x6' RC BOX (2) 879.3 879.31 928 884.47 3.53 None n/a n/a 928 884.47 3.53

605+96 193 368 891 102"x62" RC-A (3) 884.28 884.18 451 890.3 0.70 None n/a n/a 451 890.30 0.70

693+40 118 162 900 102"x62" RC-A (3) 893.15 893.01 500 896.79 3.21 None n/a n/a 500 896.79 3.21

Orange Shading = Culvert capacity does not meet design goals



TABLE 6 CULVERT SCHEDULE

Station Existing Culvert Type Proposed Addition Total Approximate

Waterway Opening

0+00 3 – 10’x9’ RC Box None 3 - 10’x9’ 264 ft2

39+00 Old Bridge

(87.5 ft2 opening) Concrete

Eliminate Crossing or 3 – 84” CSP

3 – 84” 115 ft2

52+32 1 – 168” x 107” RCP-A 60” CSP 1 – 168” x 107”

1 – 60” 119 ft2

76+50 Old Bridge Wood Eliminate Crossing or Leave Bridge in

Place Old Bridge 116 ft2

105+30 2 – 138” x 88” RCP-A None 2 - 138” x 88” 132 ft2

201+71 2 – 12’ x 5’ RC Box 24” CSP 2 – 12’ x 5’

1 – 24” 119 ft2

255+96 2 – 12’ x 5’ RC Box 24” CSP 2 – 12’ x 5’

1 – 24” 119 ft2

295+92 2 – 122” x 78” RCP-A 36” Steel-Casing

(Bore) 2 – 122” x 78”

1 – 36” 110 ft2

346+20 2 – 12’ x 5’ RC Box None 2 – 12’ x 5’ 116 ft2

404+60 2 – 122” x 78” RCP-A Lower and Extend

Existing Pipes 2 – 122” x 78” 103 ft2

476+82 2 – 14’ X 4’ RC Box None 2 – 14’ X 4’ 108 ft2

534+75 Old Bridge Concrete & Steel

Eliminate Crossing or Leave Bridge in

Place Old Bridge 120 ft2

540+02 4 – 72” RCP None 4 – 72” 113 ft2

540+50 2 – 10’ x 6’ RC Box None 2 – 10’ x 6’ 116 ft2

605+96 3 – 102” x 62” RCP-A None 3 – 102” x 62” 104 ft2

693+40 3 – 102” x 62” RCP-A None 3 – 102” x 62” 104 ft2



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')

0+00 - 106+50 14.5' From Existing Ditch R.O.W. 3.6 6.1

106+50 - 202+00 60' from Ditch Centerline, 120' Total 26.2 9.4

202+00 - 220+00 120' From Road Centerline 4.6 1.1












Acreage Totals: 121.9 51.0



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% (0.00026 ft/ft- 0.00135 ft/ft); the grade of the existing Brandt Channel varies from an average of 0.03%-0.13% (0.0003 ft/ft -0.00134ft/ft), as shown in Table 4. The proposed grade of the channel will be set such that it matches the existing inverts of most in-place 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. 201+71 – see Table 6). Further investigation of the best possible option for each crossing will be pursued during Final Engineering.



FIGURE 6: RLWD DITCH #15 PROFILE



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 360th Ave NW and Hwy 75 (See Figure 7). It also includes selected culvert improvements between 360th Ave NW and Hwy 75. No work is proposed east of Hwy 75.

3. 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)



FIGURE 8: OPTIONAL DITCH ALIGNMENT STRAIGHTENING LOCATIONS



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 540+02). 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 21.

4.8 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.



FIGURE 9: EXISTING UTILITIES



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 UNITSTOTAL ESTIMATED

QUANTITIESUNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

MOBILIZATION LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00

CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00

COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 233,775 $2.70 $631,192.50

AGGREGATE SURFACING, CLASS 5 MODIFIED TON 1,000 $13.00 $13,000.00

3 C.Y. BACKHOE HR 1 $200.00 $200.00

12 C.Y. DUMP TRUCK HR 1 $100.00 $100.00

DOZER (D-6 EQUIVALENT) HR 1 $150.00 $150.00

GRANULAR BEDDING (P) TON 400 $8.50 $3,400.00

18" CS PIPE CULVERT LF 1,800 $25.00 $45,000.00

24" CS PIPE CULVERT LF 412 $30.00 $12,360.00


60" CS PIPE CULVERT STEP BEVELED LF 86 $120.00 $10,320.00


SALVAGE AND INSTALL 122" x 78" RC ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 196 $300.00 $58,800.00

122" x 78" RC-ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 48 $600.00 $28,800.00

36" STEEL CASING PIPE CULVERT (JACK INSTALLED) LF 88 $375.00 $33,000.00

18" CS PIPE APRON EA 65 $160.00 $10,400.00

24" CS PIPE APRON EA 9 $190.00 $1,710.00

36" CS PIPE APRON EA 22 $490.00 $10,780.00

FLAP GATE FOR 18" CS PIPE EA 65 $350.00 $22,750.00



REMOVE CONCRETE BRIDGE LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00

RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 700 $55.00 $38,500.00

RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS III CY 400 $60.00 $24,000.00

TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $11,000.00 $11,000.00

TEMPORARY DITCH CHECK TYPE 3 LF 750 $4.25 $3,187.50

SEEDING ACRE 165 $55.00 $9,075.00

SEED, MIXTURE 250 LB 11,560 $1.70 $19,652.00

MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 1 TON 330 $75.00 $24,750.00

DISC ANCHORING ACRE 165 $12.25 $2,021.25

FERTILIZER, TYPE 2 TON 16.5 $670.00 $11,055.00

SUBTOTAL $1,210,203.25

LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (AGRICULTURAL LAND) ACRE 61 $4,500.00 $274,500.00

LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (EXISTING DITCH FOOTPRINT) ACRE 61 $500.00 $30,500.00

TEMPORARY RIGHT OF WAY ACRE 51 $450.00 $22,950.00

UTILITY RELOCATIONS $50,000.00

25 % $302,551.00CONTINGENCIES 10 % $121,021.00

$2,011,725.25TOTAL CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING AND ADMIN. (INC. LEGAL DITCH ENGINEERS REPORTS AND HEARINGS)



TABLE 9: ALTERNATIVE 3 PROBABLE COST

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITSTOTAL ESTIMATED

QUANTITIESUNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

MOBILIZATION LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00

CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00

COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 301,150 $2.70 $813,105.00

AGGREGATE SURFACING, CLASS 5 MODIFIED TON 1,000 $13.00 $13,000.00

3 C.Y. BACKHOE HR 1 $200.00 $200.00

12 C.Y. DUMP TRUCK HR 1 $100.00 $100.00

DOZER (D-6 EQUIVALENT) HR 1 $150.00 $150.00

GRANULAR BEDDING (P) TON 400 $8.50 $3,400.00


24" CS PIPE CULVERT LF 412 $30.00 $12,360.00




SALVAGE AND INSTALL 122" x 78" RC ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 196 $300.00 $58,800.00

122" x 78" RC-ARCH PIPE CULVERT LF 48 $600.00 $28,800.00

36" STEEL CASING PIPE CULVERT (JACK INSTALLED) LF 88 $375.00 $33,000.00

18" CS PIPE APRON EA 65 $160.00 $10,400.00

24" CS PIPE APRON EA 9 $190.00 $1,710.00

36" CS PIPE APRON EA 22 $490.00 $10,780.00




REMOVE CONCRETE BRIDGE LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00

RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 700 $55.00 $38,500.00

RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS III CY 400 $60.00 $24,000.00

TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $11,000.00 $11,000.00

TEMPORARY DITCH CHECK TYPE 3 LF 750 $4.25 $3,187.50

SEEDING ACRE 165 $55.00 $9,075.00

SEED, MIXTURE 250 LB 11,560 $1.70 $19,652.00

MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 1 TON 330 $75.00 $24,750.00

DISC ANCHORING ACRE 165 $12.25 $2,021.25

FERTILIZER, TYPE 2 TON 16.5 $670.00 $11,055.00

SUBTOTAL $1,392,115.75

LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (AGRICULTURAL LAND) ACRE 61 $4,500.00 $274,500.00

LAND ACQUISITION AND EASEMENTS (EXISTING DITCH FOOTPRINT) ACRE 61 $500.00 $30,500.00

TEMPORARY RIGHT OF WAY ACRE 51 $450.00 $22,950.00

UTILITY RELOCATIONS $50,000.00

25 % $348,029.00CONTINGENCIES 10 % $139,212.00

$2,257,306.75TOTAL CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING AND ADMIN. (INC. LEGAL DITCH ENGINEERS REPORTS AND HEARINGS)



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

2.

. 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

3.

. 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



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.



FIGURE 10: RLWD RUNOFF TIMING ZONES



FIGURE 11: CD2 BENEFITTED AREA AND SECTION INFORMATION



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.



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).



Alternative 2 includes implementation of the following components:

1. Ditch cross section enlargement downstream (west) of Hwy 75. 2. Ditch grade lowering and slope improvements downstream (west) of Hwy 75. 3. 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 A September 2012

APPENDIX A PROJECT 60 INFORMATION

Grand Marais Creek SubwatershedGovenor’s Clean Water Cabinet Pilot Project

Red Lake Watershed District

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.

CLEAN WATER INITIATIVE DEMONSTRATION

PROJECTSIn 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.

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 OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS:

� Enhance fish and wildlife habitat through the implementation of 1,000 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-yearfrequency 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 (3inches 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.

Partners: Red Lake Watershed District (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

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 2010.

Grand Marais Creek SubwatershedGovenor’s Clean Water Cabinet Pilot Project

Red Lake Watershed District

RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT PAGE 1 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT HDR PROJECT NO. 7279

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


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 1999. 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 re-started the process and the PWT with renewed focus and energy.


INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA


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

1.2.1 Process

The PWT began meeting again in early 2002. 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,


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.


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 7 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT BRANDT IMPOUNDMENT

PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES, DESIGN GOALS AND CRITERIA

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.


Preliminary Survey Report B August 2012

APPENDIX B PETITION

r

BEFORE THE RED LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT

AS DRAINAGE AUTHORITY FOR

RED LAKE WATERSHED DITCH #

|AASf££_

Petition for the Establishment of

a New Drainage System UnderMinnesota Statutes 103E.212

WHEREAS, the Petitioners for the proposed establishment of Red Lake Watershed District

Ditch # are a majority of the owners of property that the proposed Drainage System described in

the Petition passes over, or are the property owners of at least 60% of the area that the proposed New

Drainage System passes over; and

WHEREAS, the starting point, general course and terminus of the proposed Drainage System is

as follows:

Drainage System Description of Course

Proposed New Drainage System will Outlet into Polk County Ditch No. 2 in the vicinityof the Northwest Corner of Section 27-153-48. The general course of the proposedsystem from the outlet end to the upstream end is as follows; Commencing from saidOutlet, thence easterly along the existing course of Polk County Ditch No. 2 across saidSection 27 and Section 26-153-48 to a point in the Northwest Quarter Section 25-153-48where the existing channel turns to the southeast; thence continuing generallysoutheasterly along the course of the existing channel across said section 25 to the pointwhere it crosses the line common to said section 25 and section 30-153-47; thencecontinuing generally southeasterly along the course of the existing channel across theSouthwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said section 30 to the point where theexisting channel crosses the line common to said section 30 and section 31-153-47;thence continuing generally easterly along the course of the existing channel across aportion of the Northwest Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of said section 31 to a pointwhere the existing channel crosses the line common to said section 31 and section 32-153-47; thence continuing generally southeasterly along the course of the existingchannel across a portion of the Northwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of saidsection 32 to a point where the existing channel crosses the line common to said section32 and section 6-152-47; thence generally easterly and southeasterly along the existingchannel across the Northeast Quarter and into the Southeast Quarter of said section 6 tothe line common to said section 6 and section 5-152-47; thence continuing generallysoutheasterly along the course of the existing channel across said section 5 to the pointcommon to sections 5, 4, 8 and 9 all in Township 152 North, Range 47 West; where it

PJuneB, 2011 :C201105 13F: DATA\23164\00! Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

crosses into said section 9; thence continuing generally easterly and southeasterly alongthe course of the existing channel across section 9 to the line common to said section 9and section 10-152-47; thence continuing generally easterly along the course of theexisting channel across portions of the Southwest Quarter and the Southeast quarter to theline common to said section 10 and section 11-152-47; thence continuing generallyeasterly along the course of the existing channel across portions of the Northwest Quarterof the Southwest Quarter of said section 11 crossing Minnesota Trunk Highway #75 andthe Burlington North Sante Fe Railroad line and continuing along the existing channelacross said section 11 to the line common said section 11 and section 12-152-47; thencecontinuing generally easterly along the existing channel across said section 12 to the linecommon to said section 12 and section 7-152-46; and thence easterly across a portion ofGovernment Lot 2 of said section 7 and terminating at the outlet of the BrandtImpoundment 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 of the property owners from records in the

County Assessor's Office are as follows:

Parcel ID Description Sec Twp Rg Nominal

Area

Owner Accordingto Tax Lists

Address

TABOR TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY

67.00156.00 NE4NE4 28 153 48 40 Robert Vavina 119 N 58th Street

Duluth, MN 55804

67.00151.00 NW4NW4 27 153 48 40 Robert Vavina 119 N 58th Street

Duluth, MN 55804

67.00152.00 NE4 NW4 Is

3.5 ac tr

27 153 48 36.5 Willbur J. Novacek

& Diann M. Novacek

34586 130th St NW

Angus, MN 56762

67.00153.00 Tr in NE4

NW4

27 153 48 3.5 Conrad E. Zak 1621 6th Ave NW

East Grand Forks,MN 56721

67.00154.00 NW4NE4 27 153 48 40 Conrad E. Zak 1621 6th Ave NW

East Grand Forks,

MN 56721

67.00153.00 NE4NE4 27 153 48 40 Conrad E. Zak 1621 6th Ave NW

East Grand Forks,

MN 56721

^.00143.00 NW4NW4 26 153 48 40 Donald J. Kobetskyet al, KobetskyFamily Rev Trust

429 5th Ave SE

East Grand Forks,

MN 56721

PJune 13,2011:C2011 05 13

F:\DATA\23164 001 Petition (new drainage system).wpd ant

9HO

2

*?

//

67.00143.00 NE4 NW4 Is

Trs

26 153 48 38 Donald J. Kobetskyet al, KobetskyFamily Rev Trust

429 5th Ave SE

East Grand Forks,

MN 56721

67.00144.00 Tr in NE4

NW4

26 153 48 1 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120th St NW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

67.00144.01 Tr in NE4

NW4

26 153 48 1 Gary PulkrabekFarms, Inc.

34538 120th St NW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

V/67.00142.00 NW4NE4 26 153 48 40 D J R Farms Inc 32750 110th St

Angus, MN 56762-9780

N

67.00142.00

/

NE4NE4 26 153 48 40 D J R Farms Inc 32750 110th St

Angus, MN 56762-9780

1//$7X)0139.00

&

67.0P140.00

NE4NW4 25 153 48 40 Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr.

Grand Forks, ND58203

1/,67.00139.00

&

67^40.00

NW4NW4 25 153 48 40 Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr.


1/sfi.ooij&tfo

67^00140.00

SW4NW4 25 153 48 40 Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr.

Grand Forks, ND

58203

67.00139.00

&

67.00140.00

SE4NW4 25 153 48 40 Kanco Super 8 Inc 1209 Darwin Dr.


i/^7.00138.01 SW4 NE4 25 153 48 40 Phyllis Pulkrabek 33506 120th St NW

Angus, MN 56762

/^>7.00138.01 SE4 NE4 25 153 48 40 Phyllis Pulkrabek 33506 120th St NW

Angus, MN 56762

V

67.00141.00 NW4SE4 25 153 48 40 D J R Inc 32750 110th St

Angus, MN 56762-9780

\

67.00141.00

/

NE4SE4 25 153 48 40 D J R Inc 32750 110th St

Angus, MN 56762-9780

>

67.00141.00

f

SE4 SE4 25 153 48 40 D J R Inc 32750 110th St

Angus, MN 56762-9780

PJune 13, 2011:C2011 05 13F:VDATAV23164 001 Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

120

*

*

*

AP<GUS TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY

/02.00131.00 Lot 3 30 153 47 40.12 Donald J. Kobetsky

et al, KobetskyFamily Rev Trust

459 5th Ave SE

East Grand Forks,

MN 56721

a2.00131.00 Lot 4 Is Tract

(3.13 ac)30 153 47 37.16 Donald J. Kobetsky

et al, KobetskyFamily Rev Trust

459 5th Ave SE


V,02.00m .01 Tract in Lot 4 30 153 47 3.13 D J R Inc 32750 110th St

Angus, MN 56762-9780

02.00141.03

/Lot 1 31 153 47 40.19 Donald J. Kobetsky

& Agnes M.Kobetsky Trustee

459 5th Ave SE


l/ 02.00141.01 NE4NW4 31 153 47 40.19 Kenneth M.

Kobetsky9184 Silver Line Dr

Fairfax Station, VA

22039

•/()Z00139.00 NW4NE4 31 153 47 40 Michael D & Joyce

M Vanek

550 Conifer Dr

Baily, CO 80421

\y^^00139.00 NE4 NE4 31 153 47 40 Michael D & Joyce

M Vanek

550 Conifer Dr

Baily, CO 80421

1/'02.00139.00 SE4NE4 31 153 47 40 Michael D & Joyce

M Vanek

550 Conifer Dr

Baily, CO 80421

\S^2.00144.00 NW4NW4 32 153 47 40 Jay E & Mary Jo

Johnston

11955 310 Ave NW

Angus, MN 56762

</'1)2.00144.00 SW4NW4 32 153 47 40 Jay E & Mary Jo

Johnston

11955 310 Ave NW

Angus, MN 56762

IS'02.00147.00 NE4SW4 32 153 47 40 Dale Pulkrabek 32543 120StNW

Warren, MN 56762

\s02.00147.00 NW4SW4 32 153 47 40 Dale Pulkrabek 32543 120StNW

Warren, MN 56762

\s.02.00147.00 SW4 SW4 32 153 47 40 Dale Pulkrabek 32543 120StNW

Warren, MN 56762

1/'02.00147.00 SE4 SW4 32 153 47 40 Dale Pulkrabek 32543 120StNW

Warren, MN 56762

EUCLID TOWNSHIP, POL!<;coiJNTY

is-^19.00018.00 Lot 2 6 152 47 36.46 Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65

Warren, MN 56762

1/,.19.00018.00 Lot 1 6 152 47 36.78 Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65

Warren, MN 56762

PJune 13. 201LC201105 13F:\DATA\23164 001 Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt 4

4c

¥

/^9.00018.00 SW4NE4 6 152 47 40 Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65

Warren, MN 56762

^-L9.00018.00 SE4NE4 6 152 47 40 Dacian Bienek P.O. Box 65

Warren, MN 56762

!•^00019.00 NE4SE4 6 152 47 40 Dale Pulkrabek 32543 120StNW

Warren, MN 56762

1/^.00015.00 NW4SW4 5 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

1/19.00015.00 NE4SW4 5 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

LS

19,00015.00 SE4 SW4 5 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

W

i^joeoi5.oo NW4SE4 5 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

1/^r^oooi5.oo SW4 SE4 5 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

\y^f9i)0015.00 SE4 SE4 5 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

19.00012.00 SW4 SW4 4 152 47 40 Eva McDonald 919 N 7th Street

Warren, MN 56762

V' 19.00034.00 NE4NE4 8 152 47 40 Gary G. Pulkrabek 34538 120StNW

Angus, MN 56762-8954

1//f9.00036.00 NW4NW4 9 152 47 40 Robert K. West &

Robert K West

Living Trust

29612 230 St SW

Imbler, OR 97841

U/f9.00036.00 NE4NW4 9 152 47 40 Robert K. West &

Robert K West

Living Trust

29612 230 St SW

Imbler, OR 97841

l/7*

19.00036.00 SE4NW4 9 152 47 40 Robert K. West &

Robert K West

Living Trust

29612 230 St SW

Imbler, OR 97841

(//^.00036.00 SW4 NE4 9 152 47 40 Robert K. West &

Robert K West

Living Trust

29612 230 St SW

Imbler, OR 97841

PJune 13, 201LC2011 05 13F:-DATAV23164 OOlPetition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

boo

5

]/

19.00037.00 NW4SE4 9 152 47 40 Roger O. Larson 30442 120StSW

Euclid, MN 56722-9518

/•d9.00037.00 NE4SE4 9 152 47 40 Roger O. Larson 30442 120StSW

Euclid, MN 56722-9518

19.00040.00 NW4SW4 10 152 47 40 Frances Fanfulik &

Joseph J. FanfulikTrust

13913 US Hwy 75SW

Angus, MN 56762-9700

19.00040.00 NE4SW4 10 152 47 40 Frances Fanfulik &

Joseph J. FanfulikTrust

13913 US Hwy 75SW

Angus, MN 56762-9700

19.00038.00 NW4SE4 10 152 47 40 Barwin Farms Inc &

Joer Farms Inc

29612 230 St SW

Crookston, MN56716

19.00038.00 NE4 SE4 Is

Tr

10 152 47 32.2 Barwin Farms Inc &

Joer Farms Inc

29612 230 St SW

Crookston, MN56716

19.00039.00 Tr in NE4

SW4

10 152 47 7.8 Aaron & Sharice

Andresen

11609 US Hwy 75Euclid, MN 56722

19.00043.01 N 622' SW4

West of TH

Less North

127'

11 152 47 2.96 Paul J. Kasper 11615 US Hwy SWEuclid, MN 56722

19.00044.00 N 127' SW4

West of TH

11 152 47 2.89 Prairie View

CemeteryAssociation

11609 US Hwy 75Euclid, MN 56722

19.00043.00 NW4SW4

West of TH

Is trs

11 152 47 9.3 Barwin Farms Inc &

Joer Farms Inc

29612 230 St SW

Crookston, MN

56716

na TH #75 R/W

inNW4SW4

11 152 47 3.2 Minnesota

Department ofTransportation

Transportation Bldg.,395 John Ireland

Blvd

St. Paul, MN 55155

na BNSFRR

R/WinNW4

SW4

11 152 47 4.9 Burlington NorthernInc

P.O. Box 961089

Fort Worth, TX

76161-0089

19.00046.02 Portion of

19.00046.02

in NW4 SW4

EofRR

11 152 47 8.8 Red Lake Watershed

District

1000 PenningtonAvenue South

Thief River Falls,

MN 56701

PJune 13, 201 LC201105 13F:\DATA\23164\001\Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt 6

19.00047.00 NW4SW4

East of RR

less portionof

19.00046.02

in NW4 SW4

11 152 47 7.8 Roxanne Hagen 13929 State Hwy 220SW

East Grand Forks,

MN 56721


19.00046.02

inNE4SW4


District


Thief River Falls,MN 56701

19.00047.00 NE4 SW4 Ls

portion of19.00046.02

in NE4 SW4




19.00046.02

in NW4 SE4


District



19.00046.00 NW4 SE4 Ls


in NW4 SE4




19.00046.02

in NE4 SE4


District



19.00046.00 SE4 NE4 Ls


in SE4 NE4




19.00046.02

in SE4 NE4


District



19.00046.00 SE4 NE4 Ls



East Grand Forks,

in SE4 NE4 MN 56721

l/ 19.00049.00 SW4NW4 12 152 47 40 Lois Glass 25202 140th St. NW

Warren, MN 56762

1/ ' 19.00049.00 SE4NW4 12 152 47 40 Lois Glass 25202 140th St. NW

Warren, MN 56762

PJunel3,2011:C2011 05 13F: DATA'23164'.00t Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

^n,*

19.00050.01 N2NW4

NE4

12 152 47 20 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 S2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 SW4NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.01 SE4 NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 22274 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722

BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTY

04.00023.00 Lot 2 Is Ely437 ft

7 152 46 29.66 Daniel A & Joyce RWallace

12233 260th Ave SW

Euclid, MN 56722

04.00023.01 Ely 437 ftLot 2


District



WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System is necessary toprovide adequate drainage to the

surrounding agricultural property, roads andas an outlet forupstream drainage; and

WHEREAS, theproposed Drainage System willbenefit andbe useful to the public andwill

promote the public health; and

WHEREAS, the Petitioners will payall costs of theproceeding if the proceedings aredismissed,

or the contract for the constructionof the proposed Drainage Systemis not awarded.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully request that the RedLakeWatershed District,

as Drainage Authority for theproposed Red Lake Watershed District Ditch # , proceed under the

statutory requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103E.

/6?/v&> Suf**-* Z,«(t hltiH Sex. £ST |53-fe /0t6$£/>ruJ,wDyPrinted Name<£» hy t/^ /y7£7^Address/Property Description Mailing Address

Signature 7 Date ^

PJune 13. 2011:C201105 13

F:\DATA\23l64W>l\Petitk>n(new drainagesystem).wpd oml

y 19.00050.01 N2NW4

NE4

12 152 47 20 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St W

Euclid, MN 56722

\/ 19.00050.00 S2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

\y19.00050.00 SW4NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St W

Euclid, MN 56722

/ 19.00050.01 SE4NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 22274 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722

BELGIUM TOWNSHIP, POLK COUNTYiKp: ••• Is •"""•^gpsf•":.-".'.

04.00023.00 Lot 2 Is Ely437 ft


12233 260th Ave SW

Euclid, MN 56722

04.00023.01 Ely 437 ftLot 2


District



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


WHEREAS, the Petitioners will pay all 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 Lake Watershed District,

as Drainage Authority for the proposed Red Lake Watershed District Ditch # , proceed under the

statutory requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103E. w>& <-^l. d;.. cc

ftfoe%& Ru+nljTttusT H^ ^eCZ<* T^Ug e^sT&eW^gfcs, fn*. ttztPrinted Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address

Si8,te(X<^? Date

PJune 13.2011*201105 13F:\DATA\23164WlVPeblion (i.

/- *&-?z

8

19.00050.01 N2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 S2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 SW4NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.01 SE4NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 22274 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722


04.00023.00 Lot 2 Is Ely437 ft


12233 260th Ave SW

Euclid, MN 56722

04.00023.01 Ely 437 ftLot 2


District



WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System is necessary to provide adequate drainage tothe

surrounding agricultural property, roads and asanoutlet for upstream drainage; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage System will benefit and be useful tothe public and will


WHEREAS, the Petitioners will pay all costs of the proceeding if the proceedings aredismissed,

or thecontract for theconstruction of theproposed Drainage System is notawarded.

NOW, THEREFORE, thePetitioners respectfully request that the Red Lake Watershed District,

asDrainage Authority for the proposed Red Lake Watershed District Ditch # , proceed under the


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

Date

PJune 13,2011:C201105 13F:\DATA\23164W01 \Petition(new drainage syjtem).wpd cmt

/

4^ui^

Printed Name T"

Signature

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

sec- 30 Ah>̂ kk

^^°?J^c^^T^MaI - a 3 -

Date

, _ . ( Address/Property Description

_3"2>- l^-Date

Address/Property Description

Date


Date


Date


Date


Date

PJune 13. 2011:C201105 13

F:\DATA\231M O01'Petition (new drainage system!.wpd ant

AjTCm&W /ytJ^r. /*/*< Tfe77AMailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

19.00050.01 N2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 S2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 SW4 NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722


Euclid, MN 56722


04.00023.00 Lot 2 Is Ely437 ft


12233 260th Ave SW

Euclid, MN 56722

04.00023.01 Ely 437 ftLot 2


District












Printed Name

A/Eg Sdc. 3i AgusAddress/Property Description

Signature Date

PJune 13, 2011£201105 13F:\DATA\23164\001 ^Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

MailingTCefdress

3z^TT

ftt]*A 0. IfifiS"" 3Printed Name Property Description Mailing AddressAddress/Property Description

3^HZ 12V s/ SUJ

yffp^rfi X*<**^r>\.

Signature Date

hac^arj pii^/vek, W£ /y cf^c k euccjjPrinted Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address

3 >/ x*^-4 ^3L «_*»-»-

Signature Date

Address/Property DescriptionPrinted Mailing Address

Printed Name

Signature ^sWUa?'

hlC,-U

Tqhi^ g£^j Sec e£"Address/Property Description

l-l°i-IZDate

Qj£ Qvgi^s JW 75fee A/gjj <^r £CPrinted Name Address/Property Description

1— jOf-i-Z.Date

Mailing Address ^y.

Mailing Address Sy/Y

Signature P<fbeS\4*n./«<.

-^f^^^^L ?*m^»L3zf&J*s- %*?Mailing Arlrlrei

Signature Date

PJunel3,20ll:C20ll05 13F:\DATA\23164 001 Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

t/rf/tP*.

J<Ay •Sohns-h')printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature

Printed Name

Signature


/- 13 - /~LDate


><- a?- /*-Date

Sec te £olcO*(


Date


Date


Date


Date


Date


Date

PJune 13,2011:C201105 13F: DATA^3164\001Petirion (new drainage systeml.wpd cmt 10

Mailing Address f\^y^j jn^

2o7fr - ?iA &* <r<rMailing Address f<£?-, ***"

Z7SK i7^ ft WMailing Address hfoff+n /K %J

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

19.00050.01 N2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 S2NW4

NE4


Euclid, MN 56722

19.00050.00 SW4 NE4 12 152 47 40 Jeanette Kliner 27774 Center St. W

Euclid, MN 56722


Euclid, MN 56722


04.00023.00 Lot 2 Is Ely437 ft


12233 260th Ave SW

Euclid, MN 56722

04.00023.01 Ely 437 ftLot 2


District


Thief River Falls,

MN 56701









statutory requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103E. .

/ilaHllfiUAifito'kc 6Q75/ 1/MuJiJjJ^ Qft y7/7/Printed Name 7 Address/Property Descriptio:

iignat

0 T^IC^IL.TJate __

PJunel3,20ll:C20U05 13F:\DATA\23 lfrW)01\P«Hk>n (new drainage system).wpd cmt

Mailing Address T

00

Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address

Signature Date

A&a ne.ijtJJtL;**r ^1 >77^ lU-'-'C'L.--.%{*•' ^occicJ1j /?t^--Printed Name Address/Property Description Mailing Address

Signature Date

Printed Name Address/Property Description

Signature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date

PJunel3,20ll:C20U05l3F:\DATA\23l64\00l\Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Odd SYlrO HR. S l<rq SiiStPrinted Name Address/Property Description

CYJ^iSignature

Printed Name

Sl^zJ^lDate

SW AWyAddress/Property Description

£>-*<?C

V^y V/3/ /XSignature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date


Signature Date

PJunel3.20U:C201105 13F:\DATA\23164\001\Petition (new drainage system).wpd cmt

Mailing Address

QjArs&'v's*ft/t/- ^76*z

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

Mailing Address

brandt impoundment outlet ditch establishement … survey report (id 5306).pdfpreliminary survey...

Documents