DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 5.0 Detailed Analysis of Little Minnesota River Floodway and Toelle Coulee Flood Mitigation Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 5.0 Detailed Analysis of Little Minnesota River Floodway and Toelle Coulee Flood Mitigation Alternatives SECTION 5.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF LITTLE MINNESOTA RIVER FLOODWAY AND TOELLE COULEE FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 5.1 LITTLE MINNESOTA AND TOELLE COULEE ALTERNATIVES Based upon the information presented within Section 4.0, Range of Flood Mitigation Alternatives Considered, discussions with the BVFMTF, and consultation with the UMRWD, the range of Little Minnesota River flood mitigation alternatives became reduced to: 1) a Little Minnesota River floodway; and, 2) storage, a floodway, a levee or some combination thereof for Toelle Coulee. This section provides descriptions, detailed information on the engineering design, and an assessment of hydraulic performance for each of the flood mitigation alternatives selected for evaluation. Section 7 provides the rationale for selection of the preferred floodway alternatives for the Little Minnesota River and the design for Toelle Coulee. 5.1.1 Little Minnesota River Floodway Alternatives Six different alignments and two inlet types (i.e., gate-controlled or “active” and fixed crest or “passive”) for a total of twelve different floodway alternatives were considered for the Little Minnesota River to provide flood protection for the City of Browns Valley. Floodway Option 3 was added by Houston Engineering, Inc. subsequent to the November 1, 2007 BVFMTF meeting. Option 3 is intended to better address potential concerns relative to maintaining the historic proportion of flow to Lake Traverse and concerns about modifying low flows through the City of Browns Valley. All floodway designs focused on containing the design discharge (plus 1-foot of freeboard) within the floodway channel, rather than using levees to provide additional capacity. Material from floodway construction will be placed in spoil banks adjacent to the floodway and used to reconstruct Roberts CR 24. The spoil banks will function to contain flow for floods exceeding the freeboard capacity and some portions of the spoilbanks will serve as levees where the 100-year water surface profile is higher than the ground elevation (near Traverse CSAH 4 for example). The alignments primarily differ relative to the location of the floodway inlet from and outlet to the Little Minnesota River (and therefore slopes and dimensions also differ). Floodway Project No. 5304-002 January 2008 Browns Valley Flood Mitigation Page 5 - 1 designs were completed using the steady-state HEC-RAS model as described within Section 3.0. Performance was then further evaluated by simulating several historic flood events, also described within Section 3.0. Each alignment has advantages and disadvantages. 5.1.1.1 General Description of the Alternatives Each alternative requires the construction of a weir inlet at the entrance to the floodway. The dimensions of the weirs differ, depending upon whether water from the Little Minnesota River is allowed to passively flow over the weir into the floodway (i.e., a passive inlet), or a dam and gated structure is used to restrict the Little Minnesota River, increasing head and the amount of water entering the floodway (i.e., an active inlet). Each alignment includes plans for relocating Roberts CR 24 along the south side of the floodway and the construction of one new bridge on Traverse CSAH 4/Bigstone CSAH 31 across the floodway near the boundary of Big Stone and Traverse Counties. Each alignment uses the existing bridge south of Browns Valley on Traverse CSAH 4. The spoil placed along the northerly portion of the floodway is expected to be used as an access trail. Each option also requires the construction of an outlet to create a transition from the floodway into the Little Minnesota River, south of Browns Valley. The transition is needed for hydraulic and erosion protection purposes. The advantages and disadvantages of the various floodway alignments and inlet controls are shown in Table 5-1. Four categories were used to compare the alternative floodway alignments and alternatives: hydrologic effects, engineering/cost, operation/maintenance and environmental issues. Alternative CS4, Floodway Option 1 Two alignments share a similar location for the floodway inlet located within Section 31, Becker Township 125N, R 49W (Roberts County, South Dakota). The floodway alignment is generally oriented in a south-easterly or easterly direction through Section 5, T 124N, R 49W (Roberts County, South Dakota). The terminus of the floodway joining the Little Minnesota River is located within either Section 20, T 125N, R 49W (Traverse County, Minnesota) or Project No. 5304-002 January 2008 Browns Valley Flood Mitigation Page 5 - 2 Table 5-1 Little Minnesota River Floodway Alternatives Analysis Matrix de of City (i.e., environmental flows) environmental (i.e., eaching North Si Fishermen) Relative Cost Relative Relative Cost Factor Relative Degree of Maintenance Degree Bridge Span (and Cost) Span (and Bridge Transportation Features Transportation Operational Requirements Operational (i.e., overtopping Hwy. 28) overtopping (i.e., Extent of Debris and Ice Issues Ice and of Debris Extent Relative Environmental Impacts Environmental Relative Control Flood Flow to Diversion Length of Diversion Channel (ft) Channel of Diversion Length Non-Flood Flow Through Diversion Percieved Ease of Obtaining Permits Obtaining of Ease Percieved Diversion Channel Excavation (cu.yd.) Excavation Channel Diversion Replicate Historic Flows to Lake Traverse Traverse Flows Historic to Lake Replicate Likelihood of FloodingLikelihood from South of City Ease of Road Realignment / Traffic Patterns Sediment Issues, Low Flows, Issues, Sediment Geomorphology Ability to address flooding from Lake Traverse Lake from flooding to address Ability Use of Land by Landower (e.g. bisecting parcels) bisecting (e.g. by Landower of Land Use Morphology to Channel Related Issues Perceived Perceived Magnitude of Aquatic Resource Impacts Resource of Aquatic Magnitude Perceived Safety Issues (to Swimmers, Boaters, Snowmobilers, Snowmobilers, Boaters, Swimmers, (to Issues Safety Control Flood Flows 500 cfs) Through City (to about Non-Flood Flows Through City Ability to Prevent Flows from R Potential for Adverse Downstream Impacts (Big Stone Lake) Impacts Downstream for Adverse Potential HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING, DESIGN & CAPITAL COST OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ENVIRONMENTAL Passive Floodway Inlet (Inoperable Weir) 1 BRIDGE WITH HIGHER Alternative CS4, ROAD LESSER LEAST FEWER FAIR GOOD REDUCED THAN NO GOOD LEAST POOR 4,500 400,000 OK POOR 1 HIGHEST NO OPERATION HIGH LOW SAME GREATEST GREATEST GREATEST GREATEST REALIGNMENTS & SPAN LIKELY ISSUES DESIRED Option 1A CLOSURE 1 BRIDGE WITH HIGHER Alternative CS4, ROAD NOT AS GREATEST MOST FEWER FAIR GOOD REDUCED THAN MAYBE MAYBE MODERATE GOOD 6,500 630,000 POOR 2 HIGHEST NO OPERATION HIGH MODERATE SAME GREATEST GREATEST GREATEST MODERATE REALIGNMENTS & GOOD SPAN LIKELY ISSUES DESIRED Option 2B CLOSURE 1 BRIDGE WITH HIGHER Alternative CS4, ROAD NOT AS SMALLEST LEAST FEWER FAIR GOOD REDUCED THAN YES GOOD GREATEST GOOD 7,000 575,000 POOR 2 HIGHEST NO OPERATION HIGH MODERATE SAME GREATEST GREATEST GREATEST MODERATE REALIGNMENTS & GOOD SPAN LIKELY ISSUES DESIRED Option 3 CLOSURE Passive Floodway Inlet (Bladder Weir or Gate on Floodway) 1 BRIDGE WITH LOW TO ACHIEVE REDUCED SAME AS GATED Alternative CS4, ROAD LESSER SIMPLE LOW TO LEAST FEWER GOOD EXCELLENT MODERATE DESIRED NO GOOD LEAST POOR 4,500 400,000 OK POOR 2 LOWEST LOW SAME MODERATE COMPARED TO STRUCTURE IN GREATEST REALIGNMENTS & SPAN OPERATION MODERATE LIKELY ISSUES SAME RANGE INOPERABLE WEIR RIVER Option 1A CLOSURE 1 BRIDGE WITH LOW TO ACHIEVE REDUCED SAME AS GATED Alternative CS4, ROAD NOT AS GREATEST SIMPLE LOW TO MOST FEWER GOOD EXCELLENT MODERATE DESIRED MAYBE MAYBE MODERATE GOOD 6,500 630,000 POOR 3 LOWEST MODERATE SAME MODERATE COMPARED TO STRUCTURE IN MODERATE REALIGNMENTS & GOOD SPAN OPERATION MODERATE LIKELY ISSUES SAME RANGE INOPERABLE WEIR RIVER Option 2B CLOSURE 1 BRIDGE WITH LOW TO ACHIEVE REDUCED SAME AS GATED Alternative CS4, ROAD NOT AS SMALLEST SIMPLE LOW TO LEAST FEWER GOOD EXCELLENT MODERATE DESIRED YES GOOD GREATEST GOOD 7,000 575,000 POOR 3 LOWEST MODERATE SAME MODERATE COMPARED TO STRUCTURE IN MODERATE REALIGNMENTS & GOOD SPAN OPERATION MODERATE LIKELY ISSUES SAME RANGE INOPERABLE WEIR RIVER Option 3 CLOSURE Active Floodway Inlet (Gated Structure in River) 1 BRIDGE WITH ACHIEVE COMPLEX IN SAME AS GATED Alternative CS4, FLOW RANGE ROAD LESSER LEAST DAM IN RIVER MORE EXCELLENT EXCELLENT DESIRED NO GOOD LEAST POOR 4,500 400,000 OK POOR 3 LOWER ADVANCE OF LOW LOW SAME LEAST STRUCTURE IN GREATEST SAME REALIGNMENTS & SPAN LIKELY MANAGEABLE ISSUES RANGE FLOOD FLOODWAY Option 1A CLOSURE 1 BRIDGE WITH ACHIEVE COMPLEX IN SAME AS GATED Alternative CS4, FLOW RANGE ROAD NOT AS GREATEST MOST DAM IN RIVER MORE EXCELLENT EXCELLENT DESIRED MAYBE MAYBE MODERATE GOOD 6,500 630,000 POOR 4 LOWER ADVANCE OF LOW MODERATE SAME LEAST STRUCTURE IN MODERATE SAME REALIGNMENTS & GOOD SPAN LIKELY MANAGEABLE ISSUES RANGE FLOOD FLOODWAY Option 2B CLOSURE 1 BRIDGE WITH ACHIEVE COMPLEX IN SAME AS GATED Alternative CS4, FLOW RANGE ROAD NOT AS SMALLEST LEAST DAM IN RIVER MORE EXCELLENT EXCELLENT DESIRED YES GOOD GREATEST GOOD 7,000 575,000 POOR 4 LOWER ADVANCE OF LOW MODERATE SAME LEAST STRUCTURE IN MODERATE SAME REALIGNMENTS & GOOD SPAN LIKELY MANAGEABLE ISSUES RANGE FLOOD FLOODWAY Option 3 CLOSURE Ability of Option 2 ability to replicate historic flows depends upon where ice and debris jams form relative to the floodway inlet. Option 3 requires the addition of stop log bays in culverts through Th 28 to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • By Stephen J. Lawrence Water-Resources Investigations
    WATER-RESOURCES APPRAISAL OP THE LAKE TRAVERSE INDIAN RESERVATION IN SOUTH DAKOTA By Stephen J. Lawrence U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4031 Huron, South Dakota 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Rm. 408, Federal Bldg. Federal Center, Bldg. 810 200 4th St. SW Box 25425 Huron, SD 57350 Denver, CO 80225-0425 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................ 1 Introduction .............................. 1 Physiography ........................... 2 Climate .............................. 2 Geology .............................. 6 Surface water .............................. 6 Surface-water quantity ....................... 15 Streams ............................ 15 Lakes ............................. 21 Surface-water quality ....................... 21 Streams ............................ 21 Lakes ............................. 27 Ground water .............................. 31 Hydrogeology ............................ 32 Ground-water quality ........................ 35 Needed additional studies ........................ 38 Summary ................................. 40 Selected references ........................... 41 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation in South Dakota ................. 3 2. Map showing physiographic
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic History of Minnesota Rivers
    GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS Minnesota Geological Survey Ed ucational Series - 7 Minnesota Geological Survey Priscilla C. Grew, Director Educational Series 7 GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS by H.E. Wright, Jr. Regents' Professor of Geology, Ecology, and Botany (Emeritus), University of Minnesota 'r J: \ I' , U " 1. L I!"> t) J' T II I ~ !oo J', t ' I' " I \ . University of Minnesota St. Paul, 1990 Cover: An early ponrayal of St. Anthony Falls on the Mississippi River In Minneapolis. The engraving of a drawing by Captain E. Eastman of Fan Snelling was first published In 1853; It Is here reproduced from the Second Final Report of the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 1888. Several other early views of Minnesota rivers reproduced In this volume are from David Dale Owen's Report of a Geological Survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota; and Incidentally of a portion of Nebraska Territory, which was published In 1852 by Lippincott, Grambo & Company of Philadelphia. ISSN 0544-3083 1 The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 1-' \ J. I,."l n 1 ~ r 1'11.1: I: I \ 1"" CONTENTS 1 .... INTRODUCTION 1. PREGLACIAL RIVERS 5 .... GLACIAL RIVERS 17 ... POSTGLACIAL RIVERS 19 . RIVER HISTORY AND FUTURE 20 . ... REFERENCES CITED iii GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS H.E. Wright, Jr. A GLANCE at a glacial map of the Great Lakes region (Fig. 1) reveals that all of Minnesota was glaciated at some time, and all but the southeastern and southwestern corners were covered by the last ice sheet, which culminated about 20,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Minnesota River Watershed Five Year Strategic Plan
    UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN In Cooperation With: East Dakota Water Development District South Dakota Conservation Districts South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Date: August 2012 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Project Background and Scope ........................................................................8 1.2 Upper Minnesota River Watershed History ...................................................10 1.3 Upper Minnesota River Watershed Water Quality Studies ..........................13 1.4 Goals of the Upper Minnesota River Basin Project .......................................15 2.0 Causes and Sources of Impairment .......................................................................15 2.0.1 Geography, Soils, and Land Use....................................................................15 2.0.2 Water Bodies Studies and Current Status .....................................................24 2.1.0 Description of the Impairments for 303(d) Water Body Listings in the Upper Minnesota River Basin ............................................................29 2.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Basin Trends
    Minnesota River Basin TRENDS Minnesota River near Redwood Falls by Brian Peterson, Star Tribune Star Brian Peterson, by Falls near Redwood Minnesota River Dear Reader This is the first Minnesota River Trends document. The purpose of this report is to provide a broad overview of trends related to the state of the Minnesota River. It is meant to be easy-to-read overview that summarizes some of the major demographic, land use, water quality, biological and recreational trends in the Minnesota River Basin over the past 10 to 100 years depending on data availability. In a few cases, where an analysis of change over time was not possible, the report includes information on current conditions. The indicators included in the following report were prioritized by a group of agency representatives and citizens with the hopes of providing some clues of broader ecosystem health across the Minnesota River Basin. What you will discover in this document is a mixed story—research shows some indicators improving, some declining, some static. We hope that this document will provide insight into this dynamic, complex and varied river basin. The river has been studied extensively and is managed by a number of different agencies and organizations for a variety of purposes. The report draws data from researchers across many diverse fields. Thanks to our many project cooperators (see list on back page). If you want to learn more, a rich resource list used to develop this report is available online http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/trends As you will see, many actions and projects have been put in place to try to understand and improve the water quality across the basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report
    Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES 1 2019 Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................................... 11 Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 12 High Value Resources .......................................................................................................................... 15 Rare Natural Features ......................................................................................................................... 16 Native
    [Show full text]
  • Traverse County Land Use Ordinance
    Zoning Ordinance TRAVERSE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF LAND & WATER IN TRAVERSE COUNTY. THE TRAVERSE COUNTY BOARD ORDAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORITY GRANTED IN LAWS OF MINNESOTA CHAPTER 394 AS AMENDED, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 TITLE 1.00 TITLE 1.00 Title. This Ordinance shall be known, cited and referred to as the Traverse County Land Use Ordinance and will be referred to herein as THIS ORDINANCE. 101707 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SARA.GRONFELD\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET1 FILES\OLKB9\TRAVERSE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE.DOC ISL Zoning Ordinance SECTION 2 INTENT AND PURPOSE 2.00 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION 2.01 Interpretation and Application. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes and are adopted for the purpose of: 1. protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare. 2. protecting and preserving economically viable agricultural land. 3. promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. 4. conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the county. 5. conserving and developing natural resources in the county. 6. providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. 7. minimizing environmental pollution. 2.02 Purpose of Adult Use Regulations. The purpose and intent of the adult use regulations set forth in this Ordinance is to serve a substantial government interest by attempting to preserve the quality and vitality of neighborhoods, curtail the depression of property values, restrain increased criminal activity and slow the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Beginning!
    Spring 2007 RIVER TALK RIVER TALK Vol. I Issue I THE MINNESOTA RIVER CURRENT AAA NNNEEEWWW BBBEEEGGGIIINNNNNNIIINNNGGG!!! Welcome to the debut issue of River Out of a 2005 meeting came the Talk – a Minnesota River Watershed formation of the Minnesota River Watershed newsletter! We envision this communication Alliance (Watershed Alliance). This volunteer, piece as a venue to update what is happening loosely organized action-oriented group of watershed advocates is open to all citizens, with Minnesota’s namesake river and all of its landowners, organizations and agencies in the tributaries. This newsletter will highlight the efforts of the Minnesota River Watershed Minnesota River Watershed. As a result of this Alliance and vast network of partners. dynamic conversation, people from across the Ultimately, we want this newsletter to be a Minnesota River Watershed gathered to forge public forum to learn, debate, and speak about solutions, mobilize grassroots action and speak diverse issues surrounding the river. as a single voice on ecological issues facing this Not only is the Minnesota River a river. Join us! valuable resource to the people who live, work Over this last year, the Watershed and play here, it can also be said for Alliance members have focused on a number of far reaching initiatives. As a group they the state and country. Each day people selected fund raising for permanent protection find a need for this 335-mile river in both large and small ways. Slicing of sensitive lands as their initial “Clean up the through the heart of southern Minnesota River” issue. Success has already Minnesota, this river provides us with come in the form of a $250,000 grant from the recreational opportunities, drainage, Carl and Verna Schmidt Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Flood for Winnipeg
    TWENTY YEARS LATER: FLOOD MITIGATION IN THE RED RIVER BASIN R. Halliday & Associates Saskatoon, SK 2017 03 31 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In its November 2000 report, Living with the Red, the International Joint Commission (IJC) made a number of recommendations to governments aimed at reducing, mitigating, and preventing harm from future flooding in the Red River basin. The IJC noted that there is no single solution to the challenge and that comprehensive, integrated, binational approaches must be pursued and implemented. Since the 1997 flood, governments at all levels have made changes in flood-related policies, funded new programs and modified existing ones, invested in research related to flooding, and supported the establishment of new institutions such as the Red River Basin Commission. Not only major floods such as that of 1997, but also smaller tributary floods have been the focus of attention. In June 2001, the United States and Canada directed the IJC and the newly created International Red River Board to monitor progress by governments in implementing the recommendations contained in Living with the Red, and to provide encouragement for continued cooperative, innovative, and integrated watershed management approaches. In January 2003 the IJC specifically requested the Board to provide a written report on progress. A report indicating substantial progress on many recommendations was prepared and made available to the public through the IJC website. In 2006, the Red River experienced a significant flood with relatively little urban damage, although costs were incurred for measures such as closing ring dikes. In 2009, a flood occurred that, at Fargo-Moorhead, exceeded those of 1997 and 1897.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial DNA Structure of Pyganodon Grandis
    Mitochondrial DNA Structure of Pyganodon grandis (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the Lake Erie Watershed and Selected Locations in its Northern Distribution Author(s): Robert A. Krebs Brian D. Allen, Na'Tasha M. Evans and David T. Zanatta Source: American Malacological Bulletin, 33(1):34-42. Published By: American Malacological Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4003/006.033.0105 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.4003/006.033.0105 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL BULLETIN BULLETIN AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL OLUME UMBER American Malacological Bulletin 33(1), 13 March 2015 V 33, N 1 13 March 2015 Independent Papers Functional morphology of Neolepton. Brian Morton . .1 Comparative shell microstructure of two species of tropical laternulid bivalves from Kungkrabaen Bay, Thailand with after-thoughts on laternulid taxonomy. Robert S. Prezant, Rebecca M.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Minnesota River Watershed Five Year Strategic Plan
    UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN In Cooperation With: East Dakota Water Development District South Dakota Conservation Districts South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Date: August 2012 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Project Background and Scope ........................................................................8 1.2 Upper Minnesota River Watershed History ...................................................10 1.3 Upper Minnesota River Watershed Water Quality Studies...........................13 1.4 Goals of the Upper Minnesota River Basin Project .......................................15 2.0 Causes and Sources of Impairment .......................................................................15 2.0.1 Geography, Soils, and Land Use....................................................................15 2.0.2 Water Bodies Studies and Current Status .....................................................24 2.1.0 Description of the Impairments for 303(d) Water Body Listings in the Upper Minnesota River Basin ............................................................29 2.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan TRAVERSE County, Minnesota, 2015
    Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan TRAVERSE County, Minnesota, 2015 Traverse County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2015 This page is intentionally left blank Page | 2 Traverse County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2015 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan TRAVERSE County, Minnesota 2015 Contact: Traverse County Lynn Siegel, Emergency Management Director 708 3rd Avenue North Wheaton, MN 56296 [email protected] (320) 563-0872 www.co.traverse.mn.us Prepared By: Geospatial Analysis Center College of Liberal Arts University of Minnesota Duluth 329 Cina Hall Duluth, MN 55812 Stacey Stark, Director [email protected] (218) 726-7438 Page | 3 Traverse County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2015 This page is intentionally left blank Page | 4 Traverse County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2015 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 5 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 7 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 1 – Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Upper Minnesota River Basin, West-Central Minnesota, Northeastern South Dakota and Southeastern North Dakota
    Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Upper Minnesota River Basin, West-Central Minnesota, Northeastern South Dakota and Southeastern North Dakota By Christopher A. Sanocki Abstract Data that describe the physical characteristics of stream subbasins upstream from selected points on streams in the Upper Minnesota River Basin, located in west-central Minnesota, north-eastern South Dakota, and southeastern North Dakota, are presented in this report. The physical characteristics are the drainage area of the subbasin, the percentage area of the subbasin covered only by lakes, the percentage area of the subbasin covered by both laker and wetlands, the main-channel length, and the main-channel slope. The points on the stream include outlets of subbasins of at least 5 square miles, outlets of sewage treatment plants, and locations of U.S. Geological Survey low-flow, high- flow, and continuous-record gaging stations. Introduction digitizing and assisted in the preparation of this report. These contributions were essential for the completion of This is the eighth report in a series of reports detailing this report. subbasin characteristics of streams in Minnesota and adjacent states. The Upper Minnesota River Basin drains an area of 2,090 square miles and is represented Methods by hydrologic accounting unit 07020001 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974a and 1974b). The Upper U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute series Minnesota River Basin includes parts of Traverse, topographic maps were used as source maps to obtain Stevens, Big Stone, Swift, Lac qui Parle, and Chippewa the areas for the subbasin boundaries, lakes, marshes, Counties in west-central Minnesota, Roberts, Marshall, the main-channel length, and the contour elevation Grant, Codington, and Deuel Counties in northeastern points used in this report.
    [Show full text]