DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 Post-Flood Report for the Souris River Basin – Revised March 2012 Page I 8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2011 Post-Flood Report for the Souris River Basin – Revised March 2012 Page I 8 2011 POST- FLOOD REPORT For the SOURIS RIVER BASIN US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District Water Management & Hydrology Section Revised March, 2012 2011 POST- FLOOD REPORT For the SOURIS RIVER BASIN Submitted to The International Souris River Board And to The United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 February 22, 2012 (Revised March 2012) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 2.1. Basin and Reservoir Information .............................................................................2 2.2. 1989 International Agreement for Water Supply and Flood Control ......................2 3. FLOOD METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY .............................................................3 3.1. Antecedent Conditions .............................................................................................3 3.1.1. Fall ...............................................................................................................7 3.1.2. Winter ..........................................................................................................7 3.1.3. Snow Surveys...............................................................................................7 3.2. Flood Conditions ......................................................................................................9 3.2.1. Saskatchewan .............................................................................................13 3.2.2. North Dakota ..............................................................................................14 3.2.3. Manitoba ....................................................................................................15 3.2.4. Flow Frequency and Flow Volumes ..........................................................16 4. COORDINATION OF FORECASTS AND RESERVOIR OPERATIONS ....................22 4.1. Operational and Liaison Responsibilities Under the 1989 International Agreement Between Canada and the United States ...............................................22 4.2. Forecasting and Flood Operations Coordination ...................................................23 4.3. Coordination with Stakeholders .............................................................................25 5. SPRING RUNOFF FORECASTS ....................................................................................26 5.1. 2011 Spring Forecasts ............................................................................................26 5.2. Future Runoff Forecast Modeling Enhancements .................................................32 6. RESERVOIR OPERATIONS ...........................................................................................33 6.1. Canadian Reservoirs ..............................................................................................33 6.1.1. Boundary Reservoir ...................................................................................34 6.1.2. Rafferty Reservoir ......................................................................................35 6.1.3. Alameda Reservoir .....................................................................................36 6.2. Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................36 6.2.1. Dam 41 .......................................................................................................39 6.2.2. Dam 83/Lake Darling ................................................................................39 6.2.3. Dam 96 .......................................................................................................44 6.3. J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................45 6.3.1. Inflow .........................................................................................................45 6.3.2. Impoundment Operation ............................................................................47 6.3.3. Outflow ......................................................................................................47 7. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ..........................................................................................48 USACE, St. Paul District – 2011 Post-Flood Report for the Souris River Basin – Revised March 2012 Page i 8. SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC MODELING DURING THE FLOOD .........................50 9. IMPACT OF THE 2011 FLOOD ......................................................................................50 9.1. Saskatchewan .........................................................................................................51 9.2. North Dakota ..........................................................................................................52 9.2.1. General .......................................................................................................52 9.2.2. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuges .......................................................57 9.3. Manitoba ................................................................................................................59 9.3.1. Agriculture .................................................................................................59 9.3.2. Communities ..............................................................................................59 9.3.3. Infrastructure ..............................................................................................61 10. INTERPRETATION OF 1989 CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT ...............62 11. LESSONS LEARNED.......................................................................................................63 12. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................65 13. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................67 14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................68 15. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................69 APPENDIX A: FIGURES .............................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ....................................................B-1 APPENDIX C: FORECASTING AND FLOOD OPERATIONS COORDINATION ...C-1 APPENDIX D: COORDINATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS .................................... D-1 APPENDIX E: FLOOD PROFILES ............................................................................... E-1 APPENDIX F: FLOODED AREAS ................................................................................ F-1 USACE, St. Paul District – 2011 Post-Flood Report for the Souris River Basin – Revised March 2012 Page ii LIST OF TABLES No. Page 3-1 Monthly Precipitation Totals in Millimetres (Oct 2010 – Sep 2011) And Percent of Period of Record Seasonal Averages, Souris River Basin in Saskatchewan ...................4 3-2 Monthly Precipitation Totals in Inches (Oct 2010 – Sep 2011) And Percent of Period of Record Seasonal Averages, Souris River Basin in North Dakota ...................5 3-3 Monthly Precipitation Totals in Millimetres (Oct 2010 – Sep 2011) And Percent of Period of Record Seasonal Averages, Souris River Basin in Manitoba ..........................6 3-4 Streamflow Station Information with 2011 Peak Flow and Annual Flow Volume Data and Rankings, Souris River Basin in Saskatchewan .................................................10 3-5 Streamflow Station Information with 2011 Peak Flow and Annual Flow Volume Data and Rankings, Souris River Basin in North Dakota ..................................................11 3-6 Streamflow Station Information with 2011 Peak Flow and Annual Flow Volume Data and Rankings, Souris River Basin in Manitoba ........................................................12 3-7 Souris Basin Project Flood Control Reservoirs, Drainage Area, FSL and 2011 Peak Elevation ............................................................................................................................13 3-8 Summary of June 17th Large Rainfall Event ....................................................................14 3-9 Multiple flood peaks experienced in the Souris River basin in North Dakota ..................15 3-10 Multiple flood peaks experienced along the Souris River in Manitoba ............................16 3-11 Souris River at Sherwood: Annual Instantaneous Peaks ...................................................17 3-12 Souris River at Sherwood: Annual Instantaneous Flow Frequency Values ......................19 3-13 Top 10 Annual Volumes for Specified Durations: Souris River at Sherwood ..................20 3-14 Estimated Frequencies for Specified Durations of Runoff at Sherwood ...........................21 5-1a February 1, 2011 SWA Runoff Forecast for the Souris River Basin ................................27 5-1b 2011 Target Draw Down Levels for the Souris River Basin Reservoirs Based on the 90 Percent 90-Day Inflow Forecast ...................................................................................27 5-2a February 15, 2011 SWA Runoff Forecast for the Souris River Basin ..............................28 5-2b 2011 Target
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Souris R1ve.R Investigation
    INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION REPORT ON THE SOURIS R1VE.R INVESTIGATION OTTAWA - WASHINGTON 1940 OTTAWA EDMOND CLOUTIER PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 1941 INTERNATIONAT, JOINT COMMISSION OTTAWA - WASHINGTON CAKADA UNITEDSTATES Cllarles Stewrt, Chnirmun A. 0. Stanley, Chairman (korge 11'. Kytc Roger B. McWhorter .J. E. I'erradt R. Walton Moore Lawrence ,J. Burpee, Secretary Jesse B. Ellis, Secretary REFERENCE Under date of January 15, 1940, the following Reference was communicated by the Governments of the United States and Canada to the Commission: '' I have the honour to inform you that the Governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to refer to the International Joint Commission, underthe provisions of Article 9 of theBoundary Waters Treaty, 1909, for investigation, report, and recommendation, the following questions with respect to the waters of the Souris (Mouse) River and its tributaries whichcross the InternationalBoundary from the Province of Saskatchewanto the State of NorthDakota and from the Stat'e of NorthDakota to the Province of Manitoba:- " Question 1 In order to secure the interests of the inhabitants of Canada and the United States in the Souris (Mouse) River drainage basin, what apportion- ment shouldbe made of the waters of the Souris(Mouse) River and ita tributaries,the waters of whichcross theinternational boundary, to the Province of Saskatchewan,the State of North Dakota, and the Province of Manitoba? " Question ,$! What methods of control and operation would be feasible and desirable in
    [Show full text]
  • Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Kenmare, North Dakota
    U. S. Department of the Interior U . S. Fish and Wildlife Service N ationaJ. Wildlife Refuge System Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Kenmare, North Dakota Calendar Year 1999 REVIEW AND APPROVALS DES LACS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kenmare, North Dakota ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1999 ·hiJ)j ~ uh:VO; Refuge Operations Project Leader Date Specialist / " 2. )....0--­ ~Appr;.; Date ,, TABLE OF CONTENTS IN"TRODUCTION . 1 ,, A. HIGHLIGHTS . 2 I ,, B. CLTh1ATIC CONDITIONS . 3 ! C. LAND ACQUISITION . 5 r, 2. Easements . 5 i D. PLANNIN"G . 5 ,., 2. Management Plan . 5 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates . 5 5. Research and Investigations . 6 6. Other .............................................. 9 E. ADMINISTRATION ....................................... 12 1. Personnel ........................................... 12 2. Youth Program ....................................... 14 3. Other Manpower Programs ................................ 15 4. Volunteer Program ..................................... 15 5. Funding ............................................ 16 6. Safety ............................................. 19 M 7. Technical Assistance . 19 8. Other .............................................. 19 ,., a. Training and Meetings ............................... 21 b. Asbestos ....................................... 23 F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT .................................. 23 1. General . 23 2. Wetlands ........................................... 24 4. Croplands ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Des Lacs River in Ward, Mountrail, and Renville Counties, North Dakota
    E. coli Bacteria TMDL for the Des Lacs River in Ward, Mountrail, and Renville Counties, North Dakota Final: July 2011 Prepared for: US EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Prepared by: Heather Husband Duchscherer Environmental Scientist North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality Gold Seal Center, 4th Floor 918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501-1947 North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality E. coli Bacteria TMDL for the Des Lacs River in Ward, Mountrail, and Renville Counties, North Dakota Jack Dalrymple, Governor Terry Dwelle, M.D., State Health Officer North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality Gold Seal Center, 4th Floor 918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501-1947 701.328.5210 Des Lacs River E. coli Bacteria TMDL Final: July 2011 Page ii of iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED 1 1.1 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listing Information 2 1.2 Ecoregions 3 1.3 Land Use 4 1.4 Climate and Precipitation 5 1.5 Available Data 7 1.5.1 E. coli Bacteria Data 7 1.5.2 Hydraulic Discharge 7 2.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 8 2.1 Narrative North Dakota Water Quality Standards 8 2.2 Numeric North Dakota Water Quality Standards 9 3.0 TMDL TARGETS 10 3.1 Des Lacs River Target Reductions in E. coli Bacteria Concentrations 10 4.0 SIGNIFICANT SOURCES 10 4.1 Point Source Pollution Sources 10 4.2 Nonpoint Source Pollution Sources 11 5.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 11 5.1 Mean Daily Stream Flow 11 5.2 Flow Duration Curve Analysis 12 5.3 Load Duration Analysis 13 5.4 Waste Load Allocation 15 5.4.1 Donnybrook, ND Wastewater Treatment System 15 5.4.2 Carpio, ND Wastewater Treatment System 15 5.5 Loading Sources 16 6.0 MARGIN OF SAFETY AND SEASONALITY 17 6.1 Margin of Safety 17 6.2 Seasonality 17 7.0 TMDL 17 8.0 ALLOCATION 19 8.1 Livestock Management Recommendations 20 8.2 Other Recommendations 21 9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 22 10.0 MONITORING 22 11.0 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 23 12.0 REFERENCES 24 Des Lacs River E.
    [Show full text]
  • Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Annual Narrative Report Calendar
    Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Annual Narrative Report Calendar Year 2002 REVIEW AND APPROVALS DES LACS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kenmare, North Dakota ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 2002 ~1A. ~ ~ry\._ fh}_f>$ Refuge Manager Date Project Leader Date .:£~a~ 101;11~ Regional Office Approval Date 7 n TABLE OF CONTENTS r, ,, INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1 ' I A. HIGHLIGHTS ......................................................... 2 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS .............................................. 3 n. : C. LAND ACQUISITION .................................................. 5 2. Easements ......................................................... 5 n: ' D. PLANNING .............. : . ........................................... 5 1. Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................... 5 n 2. Management Plan .................................................. 6 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates ............ 6 n 5. Research and Investigations .......................................... 6 6. Other ........................................................... 13 n E. ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 14 1. Personnel ........................................................ 14 2. Youth Program ................................................... 18 n 4. Volunteer Program ................................................ 19 5. Funding ......................................................... 20 6. Safety .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Saskatchewan Flood and Natural Hazard Risk Assessment
    2018 Stakeholder Insights Saskatchewan Flood and Natural Hazard Risk Assessment Prepared for Saskatchewan Ministry of Government Relations By V. Wittrock1, R.A. Halliday2, D.R. Corkal3, M. Johnston1, E. Wheaton4, J. Lettvenuk1, I. Stewart3, B. Bonsal5 and M. Geremia3 SRC Publication No. 14113-2E18 May 2018 Revised Dec 2018 EWheaton Consulting Cover Photos: Flooded road – Government of Saskatchewan Forest fire – Government of Saskatchewan Winter drought – V.Wittrock January 2009 Snow banks along roadway – J.Wheaton March 2013 Oil well surrounded by water – I. Radchenko May 2015 Participants at Stakeholder Meetings – D.Corkal June 2017 Kneeling farmer on cracked soil – istock photo Tornado by Last Mountain Lake – D.Sherratt Summer 2016 This report was prepared by the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) for the sole benefit and internal use of Ministry of Government Relations. Neither SRC, nor any of its employees, agents or representatives, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, reliability, suitability or usefulness of any information disclosed herein, or represents that the report’s use will not infringe privately owned rights. SRC accepts no liability to any party for any loss or damage arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon this report, including, without limitation, punitive damages, lost profits or other indirect or consequential damages. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by SRC Saskatchewan Flood and Natural Hazard Risk Assessment Prepared for Saskatchewan Ministry of Government Relations By V.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Drainage Report.Pdf
    HH3: Souris River Basin Artificial Drainage Impacts Review July 15, 2019 FINAL REPORT Submitted to the International Souris River Study Board by the HH3 Working Group Report prepared by Bob Harrison Executive Summary This project was undertaken as a portion of the Souris River Study. The governments of Canada and the United States asked the IJC to undertake studies evaluating the physical processes occurring within the Souris River basin which are thought to have contributed to recent flooding events. The public expressed a high interest in the issue of agricultural drainage impacts. Thus an “Artificial Drainage Impacts Review” was added to International Souris River Study Board’s (ISRSB) Work Plan to help address their questions and provide information to the public regarding wetland drainage. This report summarizes the current knowledge of artificial drainage in the Souris River basin. The study involved a review of drainage legislation and practices in the basin, the artificial drainage science, the extent of artificial drainage in the basin and the potential influence on transboundary flows Artificial drainage is undertaken to make way for increased or more efficient agricultural production by surface or/and subsurface drainage. Surface drainage moves excess water off fields naturally (i.e., runoff) or by constructed channels. The purpose of using surface drainage is to minimize crop damage from water ponding after a precipitation event, and to control runoff without causing erosion. Subsurface drainage is installed to remove groundwater from the root zone or from low-lying wet areas. Subsurface drainage is typically done through the use of buried pipe drains (e.g., tile drainage).
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Ideology and Subject Formation Among Elite And
    AN EXAMINATION OF IDEOLOGY AND SUBJECT FORMATION AMONG ELITE AND ORDINARY RESIDENTS IN THE BAKKEN SHALE, NORTH DAKOTA, 2015-2016 A Dissertation by THOMAS ANDREW LODER Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Christian Brannstrom Committee Members, Forrest Fleischman Wendy Jepson Kathleen O’Reilly Head of Department, David Cairns August 2018 Major Subject: Geography Copyright 2018 Thomas Andrew Loder ABSTRACT The US shale energy boom of the late 2000s and 2010s has brought both economic growth and negative externalities to communities undergoing extraction. Building on previous research on fracking landscapes – as well as geographies of energy and natural resources and case studies of environmental subjectivity in extractive zones – this dissertation employed a suite of qualitative methods to examine the discourses and ideology used to support and oppose fracking-led development in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale. The dissertation consists of three substantive chapters. The first employs key actor interviews and participant observation to examine how pro-oil ideology is advanced by economic and political elites in North Dakota. This chapter concludes that elites frame support for oil as an extension of existing conservative ideologies prevalent in the state. The second substantive chapter consists of content analysis of coverage of oil- related events in state-level newspapers, specifically concentrating on a 2014 conservation ballot measure and the Keystone XL pipeline. This chapter concludes that pro-oil writers are more effective in their messaging due to focusing on economic and emotional appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • MSU Mesmerized Dakota Square April 4, 2012 MSU Summer and Fall
    April 4, 2012 PIO update This spring brings many oppor - tunities to share in celebration at Minot State University. At the Employee Appreciation Luncheon April 26, colleagues marking five-year increments of service and those receiving MSU Board of Regents Faculty and Staff Achievement Awards will be recog - nized. Congratulations to all award winners and all MSU employees for their service to students and the community! MSU mesmerized The Spring Honor Dance and Dakota Square Powwow Celebration, an intercultur - Nearly 40 Minot State al event honoring the Class of 2012 University groups participated in and their families, is April 27-28. the sixth annual MSU at the Mall, This is an unforgettable event focus - which provided an excellent ing on diversity and appreciation. opportunity for MSU to showcase Individuals do not have to be its students, academic programs, alumni to attend the MSU Alumni services, student organizations Gala April 27 at the Holiday Inn, and other university entities to the Riverside. Tickets for this elegant community. evening of music, auction and fine The theme for the event was dining go quickly. Call the Alumni engagement as students from Office at 858-3234 to reserve a seat, special education classes involved young and old in its unique projects. The Science Club and thus, raise money for scholar - demonstrated how putty is made with two simple ingredients, and MSU’s Jazz Ensemble ships. energized the Sears Court with its fabulous musical selections. Other highlights included Spring would not be complete the potter’s wheel, nursing students giving free blood pressure checks and coffee tasting without congratulating students who from the future Beaver Brew Café.
    [Show full text]
  • Des Lacs Flood Control
    DES LACS RIVER FLOOD CONTROL STUDY BURKE, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, RENVILLE COUNTIES NORTH DAKOTA CANADA UNITED STATES BURKE COUNTY MOUNTBAIL COUNTY RENVILLE COUNTY WARD COUNTY MINOT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT SWC PROJECT NO. 1772 NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER COMMISSION APRIL, 1984 lti\,i PRELII4INARY ENGTNEERTNG REPORT DES LACS FJ\ÆR BASIN STUDY SWC PROJECT #L772 APRTL, t9g4 NORTH DÃKOT"A STATE VIATER COMII{ISSION 900 EAST BOIIITEVARD BTSMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 58505 PREPARED BY: WATER ENGIIÏEER DALE L. Þfa HYDROLOGY AND ITWESTTGATIONS ENGINEER D¿$ID A.. -8. DIRECTOR. OF ENGINEERING VERNON FAHY, STATts SUMMARY In May, 1983 the North Dakota State blater Commission entered into an agreement v¡ith the lrlard county Water Resource District to develop a hydrologic model and evaluate flooding problems in the Des Lacs River Basin. A hydrologic computer model was used to estimate discharges on the tributaries and at selected points on the river. Eight potential d.am sites were investigated for their potential to reduce flooding in the basin. It should, be pointed out that this report is not proposing that these dams be constructed at this Èime. If the lrlater Resource District. desires to pursue any particular dam or Èype of dam, a more detailed investigation would be reguired,. The dams studied both individually and coll-ectively do not provide a large degree of flood. protection. The study shows that several dams would be required to reduce the flood peaks significantly. The follow- ing results pertain to the placement of dam sites. 1. Dams placed north of the Des Lacs Refuge would have litÈIe downstream effect d.ue to the combined capacity of the refuge reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • CEC Methodology Review
    CEC Methodology Review Dr. Laura Bakkensen Associate Professor University of Arizona March 25, 2021 Team Members CEC Nayheli Tejumola Alliu Rojas CEC Secretariat’s Environmental Quality Unit Orlando Cabrera-Rivera CEC Secretariat’s Environmental Quality Unit Canada Hirmand Saffari Pacific Water Research Centre, Simon Fraser University Xin Wen Pacific Water Research Centre, Simon Fraser University Zafar Adeel Pacific Water Research Centre, Simon Fraser University Mexico Ana Maria Alarcón Ferreira PCT/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ernesto Franco Vargas Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres Karla Margarita Méndez Estrada Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres The United States Gregg M. Garfin School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona Laura Ann Bakkensen School of Government & Public Policy, University of Arizona Lynn M. Rae School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona Renee Ann McPherson Geography and Environmental Sustainability, The University of Oklahoma CEC Methodology • Develop a standardized methodology for assessing the cost of extreme flood – Collaborative process across government agencies, community members, private sector partners, and Indigenous experts – Create a database using this methodology and populate with data from three countries • Discuss the extension of this methodology to a multi-hazard assessment – E.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, landslides – Conduct in-depth case studies Methodology Development and Project Stages 1. Methodology development – Identification of existing methodologies – Multi-stakeholder analysis of methodologies (First Expert Workshop) – Formulation of a proposed methodology 2. Methodology validation and testing – Data compilation for the 2013-2017 period – database development – Data analysis – robustness of methodology and geographical/temporal trends – Dialogue on Indigenous perspectives (Indigenous Perspectives Workshop) – Methodology revision and finalization (Second Expert Workshop) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge Waterfowl Productions Areas
    Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge If any of your forefathers homesteaded on the prairie, a stop at this Refuge is a must. Here, the graceful, wind-swept beauty of unbroken prairie can be fully appreciated. Scenes like these must have awed and struck fear in the hearts of Special early settlers, many of whom had spent their lives amidst the shelter and protection of forested areas. This is probably the best example of mid-grass prairie pothole lands remain­ State Numbered Highways ing in the United States. Try to schedule a visit during and Other Roads the spring or early summer when both wildflowers and US Numbered and Interstate Highways waterfowl are very visible. Gravel Surfaced Places Waterfowl Productions Areas Lakes and Rivers Approximate Boundaries of Refuges As you travel from Refuge to Refuge, watch for Waterfowl Refuge Headquarters Production Areas. These relatively small wildlife areas, purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are marked with green and white boundary signs illustrated with a canvasback duck and ducklings. They were preserved to protect and improve waterfowl habitat, particularly prairie nesting areas for ducks. Birdwatching, photography, and hunting are permitted. Infor­ mation on Waterfowl Produc­ tion Areas can be obtained at any of the Refuges. Many Waterfowl Production Areas and National Wildlife Refuges have been bought with monies raised from the sale of Duck Stamps. Today, as in the last half century, your purchase of a Duck Stamp will aid waterfowl and other wildlife by pro­ tecting essential habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants your visit to these Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas to be a memorable experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota Hydrography, and Land Use Pattern
    1 7 . M i d d l e R o c k i e s The Middle Rockies ecoregion is characterized by individual mountain ranges of mixed geology interspersed with high elevation, grassy parkland. The Black Hills are an outlier of the Middle Rockies and share with them a montane climate, Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota hydrography, and land use pattern. Ranching and woodland grazing, logging, recreation, and mining are common. 17a Two contrasting landscapes, the Hogback Ridge and the Red Valley (or Racetrack), compose the Black Hills 17c In the Black Hills Core Highlands, higher elevations, cooler temperatures, and increased rainfall foster boreal Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, This level III and IV ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000; it Literature Cited: Foothills ecoregion. Each forms a concentric ring around the mountainous core of the Black Hills (ecoregions species such as white spruce, quaking aspen, and paper birch. The mixed geology of this region includes the and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial depicts revisions and subdivisions of earlier level III ecoregions that were 17b and 17c). Ponderosa pine cover the crest of the hogback and the interior foothills. Buffalo, antelope, deer, and elk highest portions of the limestone plateau, areas of schists, slates and quartzites, and large masses of granite that form the framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems originally compiled at a smaller scale (USEPA, 1996; Omernik, 1987). This Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United still graze the Red Valley grasslands in Custer State Park.
    [Show full text]