The report of the International Garrison Diversion Study Board is bound in six volumes as follows:
REPORT APPENDIX A - WATER QUALITY APPENDIX B - WATER QUANTITY APPENDIX C - BIOLOGY APPENDIX D - USES APPENDIX E - ENGINEERING APPENDIX D
USES
INTERNATIONAL JOINTCOMMISSION December 3, 1976 December 3, 1976
International Garrison Diversion StudyBoard Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Billings, Montana,United States
Gentlemen:
The Uses Committee is pleasedto submit herewith its final reportin accordance with the terms ofreference given to it by the International Garrison Diversione& Study Board. H.G. Mills, CanadianCo-chairman
,,I r " i / .I ,' . . -,/'+.f?&&/p& & yjj 9-42. D.M. Tate, Cazadian Member E.W. Stevke,United States Member (ii) SUMMARY The Uses Committeehas analyzed the impacts of GDU onmajor water uses in the Red, Assiniboine and Sourisriver basins andon Lakes Winnipegand Manitoba. Water Uses includedin the analysis are: munici- pal,industrial, agricultural, rural domestic, recreational, fish and wildlife, andother. The analysisof GDU impacts is confined to usesin Canada.The effects upon theseimpacts of variousalternatives andmodi- ficationsto the authorized GDU project were alsoanalysed. The following sections summarize theresults of the Uses Committee'sanalysis. (a)Municipal Use (1) Increasedcosts of municipal water supplytreatment: Deteriorated water quality will require, as a minimum measure,that currentlyinstalled or planned water treatmentplants be operated at peakefficiency, producing the best quality of water ofwhich they are capable.This measure represents an increased cost of $59,000 annually. Constituentssuch as nitrates, sulfates andsodium would remain at post- GDU levelssince reduction of theseparameters is beyond the capability ofcurrent treatment facilities. Post-GDU levels of theseconstituents couldhave adverse effects on human healthin certain instances. The costof restoring the quality of current water suppliesduring, the post-GDU period(i.e. the cost of treating all chemicalconstituents down tocurrent levels) will beabout $1,895,000 annually. However, many constituents wouldbe reduced tolower levels thancurrently experiencedthereby making overall quality of finished water supplies better.These increased costs would accrueto those communities in Manitobawhich draw part or all oftheir supplies from surface waters to beaffected by GDU; these are Emerson,Morris, St. Jean Baptiste, Souris, Portage la Prairie and Selkirk.If the treatment described above is adopted,the effects summarized in(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) and(a)(5) would notoccur. Of thevarious alternatives or combinations of alterna- tivesinvestigated, some would slightlyreduce the treatment costs computed for GDU, others would resultin slight increases. Most (includingthe three combinations of alternatives) would notchange incrementaltreatment costs significantly. Combinations I1 and 111 would reduceannual costs of treating to current levels to about $1,848,000, a reductionof 2.5 percent. (2)Increased taste andodor problems at Souris and Portage la Prairie:This effect is attributableto the potential increases in biomass in theSouris and Assiniboinerivers due to increased nutrient loadings. Most ofthe alternatives and combinations studied would tend toincrease the taste andodor problems predicted for the authorized plan. (3) Riskof methemoglobinemia in infants:Possible increases in nitrate levels in the Souris and Assiniboinerivers could increase therisks associated with this sometimes fatal disease. Mostof the alternatives andcombinations studied would tend to increase concerns regarding methemoglobinemia. (iii) (4) Problemsfor persons on salt-restricted diets: Water qualityprojections indicate that sodium levels on the Souris and Assiniboine rivers will increase as a result of GDU, causinghardship for personswith heart conditions and others on salt-restricted diets. Some of thealternatives studied would slightlyincrease these problems, others woulddecrease them. The combinationsstudied would generally decrease thesodium levels predictedfor the authorized plan. (5) Possiblelaxative effects: This problem is dueto predictedincreases in sulfate levels inthe Souris and Assiniboine rivers. Some ofthe alternatives studied would increasepotential problems of thisnature, others would decrease them.The combinationsstudied would generallyreduce concerns regarding laxative effects. (b)Industrial Use (1)Increased costs for treatment of industrial water supplies:Manitoba Hydro's installation at Selkirk would incuraddition- al treatmentcosts as a result of GDU. Incrementalannual costs of treating to required quality when best estimate conditionsprevail in the Red River wouldbe $1600 during the peak impact period and $1100 during theequilibrium period. Achieving an acceptable quality of water when high estimate conditionsexist would resultin an annual incremental cost increaseof $93,500 (peakimpact) and $92,200 (equilibrium). All projected industrialuses requiring water low in TDS and free from taste andodors would incurincreased treatment costs as a result of GDU. None ofthe alternativesstudied would significantlyaffect industrial water treatment costs computed forthe authorized plan. Agricultural Use (1) Increasedleaching water requirementsfor some crops: A 10 percentincrease in water applications wouldbe requiredto prevent yieldreductions in salt-sensitive crops such as carrots,beans and onionsin the Souris River Basin. None of the alternativesstudied would significantlyaffect this additional requirement. (2) Increasedflood damages along the Souris River: The additionof GDU returnflows to the Souris River would result in incrementalflood damages (direct plus indirect) of $24,000 annually. Most ofthe alternatives investigated wouldreduce these incremental damagessomewhat. The largestreduction, about 40 percent, would result from thecombination of alternatives identified in this Appendix as Combination 111. (3) Potentialphysiological disorders in livestock: These effects wouldbe theresult of increased sulfate and nitrate levels and wouldbe most significant along the Souris River. Along theAssiniboine River, theseeffects wouldbe of less concern. No sucheffects are anticipatedalong the Red River. Some ofthe alternatives investigated would increaseconcerns in thisregard, others would decrease them. All ofthe combinations studied would reduce sulfate levels somewhat, while nitrate levels wouldbe increased. (4) Increased water suppliesfor irrigation: GDU return flows will increase potential supplies of water in the Souris and Red rivers.If the increased supply is firm, 5,200 acres of landin the Souris River Basincould be irrigated. Incremental flows in the Red Rivercould provide for the irrigation of 1,900 acres of land,although nodemand forthis water is anticipated. Most ofthe alternatives would reducepotential benefits to irrigation water supply. The largest reduction,about 2,700 acres in total, would result fromCombination 111. (d)Rural Domestic Use (1) Increased water treatmentcosts: Degraded water quality alongthe Assiniboine River will result in increased treatment costs to rural domestic users who dependupon the Assiniboine for their water supply. The costof treating to current quality (and for some parameters tolower than current levels) is estimatedto be $30,600 annually. None of the alternatives studied wouldhave a significant effect on increased treatmentcosts. (2) Problemsfor persons on salt-restricteddiets: These effects are similar tothose discussed in (a)(4) but apply only to the Assiniboine River. (3) Riskof methemoglobinemia ininfants: The effects describedin (a)(3) apply equally here with respect to the Assiniboine River. (4) Possiblelaxative effects: The effectsdescribed in (a)(5) are relevanthere with respect to the Assiniboine River. (e)Recreational Use (1) Adverseeffects on quality of therecreational experience:Increased biomass and increased turbidity expected as a result of GDU couldadversly affect the quality of recreational experiencesalong impacted waterways. The alternativesconsidered, if implemented,would increase concerns in this regard. (2) Potentialbenefits to canoeing along the Souris River: Increasedstreamflow in the Souris River duringthe summer monthswould provideadditional canoeing opportunities provided that increased biomassdoesn't concurrently reduce activity. Most ofthe alternatives wouldreduce this potential benefit. Combination 111 would decrease any potential benefit byabout 50 percent. (f)Fish and Wildlife Uses (1) Loss of35,500 ducks and 2,700 hunter man-days: The loss of wet:Lands withinthe GDU project area will reduceannual duck populationsin Manitoba by 35,500ducks, or about 2 percentof the annual population.This loss would inturn result in an annual loss of2,700 hunter man-daysand $54,000 inrelated expenditures. Unquantified losses relatedto guiding and outfitting would alsooccur. It is estimated thatreplacement of habitat to offset these losses would cost $6,460,000. The"wetland restoration" alternative and any of the combinations studied wouldcompletely offset the losses attributed to the authorized plan. (2) Annual lossof $2,977,000 to the commercial fishery: Reductionsin walleye, whitefish and sauger populations in Lakes Winnipegand Manitoba due tothe introduction of exotic species will decreasecommercial fishing and related revenue by $2,977,000 annually. The "closedsystem" alternative would offsetmost, if not all, ofthe lossespredicted for the authorized plan. As all combinationsof alternativesinclude the "closed system" concept, any of these would alsovirtually eliminate the predicted impact. (3)Sport fishing losses: The introductionof exotic species would resultin annual losses of 26,200 man-days of sportfishing and $131,000 inrelated revenue. Unquantified losses to guiding and outfitting activities havealso been identified. The effects ofthe alternativeson these impacts are similar tothose discussed in (f) (2). (4) Loss offish for subsistenc.e: Introduction of exotic species would resultin subsistence food supply losses of 222,000 pounds annually. The losses,primarily to native people, would beeliminated by theimplementation of the "closed system'' alternative as discussed in(f)(2). (5)Possible additional fish losses: The fish-related lossesoutlined previously wouldbe due entirely to the introduction of exoticfish species into the Hudson Bay DrainageBasin. Additional losses would be the result of the introduction of fish parasites and diseases and possible water qualityeffects onindigenous species. These additionallosses wouldbe substantiallyreduced by the"closed system" alternative or byany of the combinations studied. (6)Waterfowl losses in Alberta and Saskatchewan: Loss of waterfowlhabitat in North Dakota may causedecreases in duck populations in Alberta andSaskatchewan inaddition to those described previously for Manitoba. The "wetlandrestoration" alternative and all of the combinationswould substantially reduce duck losses in Alberta and Saskatchewan. (8)Other Uses (1)Increased erosion of archaeological sites: The addition ofreturn flows to the Souris River could increase erosion along this watercourse.Increased erosion could damage existing and potential archaeologicalsites. Many ofthe alternatives, if implemented, would reduceconcerns with regard to erosion of archaeological sites. General Effects (1) Decrease inassimilative capacity: By usingthe Souris, Red and Assiniboinerivers in Canada for GDU returnflows and wastes, a portion of the rivers' assimilative capacities will bepermanently consumed. As a result, water management flexibilityin Canada will becomemore limitedand costs would likelybe incurred to treat effluents from new industries where assimilative capacityhas been reduced by GDU. (2) Degradationof imported water: Many plansexist to move water fromthe northern parts of thePrairie Region to the study area forirrigation and otheruse. This water wouldbe of reasonably high quality andcould be degraded to some extent bymixing with GDU return flows. (vii) REPORT OF THE USES COMMITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: MAIN REPORT Title Page PAGE Letter of Transmittal Summary Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 (a) Terms of Reference 1 (b) Scope of the Study 2 LC) StudyArea Description 3 Location Souris River Assiniboine River Red River Lake Winnipeg Lake Manitoba and Delta Marsh Geology, Physiography and Soils Climate Water Resources Souris River Red River Assiniboine River Population and Economic Activity (d) WaterUse Terminology 9 (e) General Approach to the Study 9 (f) ReportOutline 10 (g) Acknowledgements 11 11. SUMMARY OF CURRENTIN-STREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 12 (a) Introduction 12 (b) NorthDakotaWater Quality Standards 13 (c) MinnesotaQualityStandardsWater 14 (d) QualityManitobaObjectivesWater 16 (e) International Red River Pollution Board Objectives 1.9 (f) ComparativeAnalysis of Standardsand Objectives 19 MUNICIPAL WATER USE WATER111. MUNICIPAL 21 (a) Introduction 21 (b) Methodology 21 (c) Current Municipal Water Use 24 (d) Future Municipal Water Use 24 (viii) PAGE (e) Water QualityParameters ofImportance for Municipal Use 26 Hardness Nitrate TotalDissolved Solids Sodium Sulfates Taste and Odor (f)Effects of Existing Water Qualityand Quantity on Current andFuture Municipal Water Use 32 (i) Water TreatmentCosts (ii) Uses Foregone (g)Effects of GDU onMunicipal Water Uses 35 (i)Descriptive Analysis (ii)Municipal Treatment Cost Analysis IV. INDUSTRIAL WATER USE 58 (a) Introduction 58 (b) Methodology 58 (c)Current Water Use 61 (d)Future Water Use 61 (e)Identification of Important Water QualityParameters for Industrial Use 61 (i) Steam Generationand Cooling (ii) Food ProcessingIndustry (iii)Flat Glass Manufacturing (iv)Fertilizer Manufacturing (f) Effects ofCurrent Water Qualityand Quantity on Current andFuture Industrial Use 67 (8)Effects of GDU on Currentand Future Industrial Use 68 1. Red River (fromInternational Boundary to LakeWinnipeg) 2. SourisRiver (from International Boundary to Assiniboine River) 3.Assiniboine River (from Souris River to Red River) 4. Lake Winnipeg v. AGRICULTURAL WATER USE 73 (a) Introduction (a) 73 (b) Methodology 75 (i)Current Use Inventory (ii)Projected Agricultural Uses (iii)Effects of GDU on Irrigation (iv)Effects of GDU onLivestock and Poultry (v) Effectsof Increased Flows due to GDU PAGE Current Water Use Water Current 82 1. Red, Sheyenne and Wild Rice Rivers (to International Boundary) 2. Souris River (from Confluence with Wintering River to the International Boundary) 3. Red River (from International Boundary to Lake Winnipeg) 4. Souris River (from International Boundary to Assiniboine River) 5. Assiniboine River (from Souris River to the Red River) 6. Lake Winnipeg 7. Lake Manitoba Future Water Use, 1985 and 1985 Use, Water Future 2000 93 1. Red, Sheyenne and Wild Rice Rivers (to International Boundary) 2. Souris River (from Confluence with Wintering River to the International Boundary) 3. Red River (from International Boundary to Lake Winnipeg) 4. Souris River (from International Boundary to Assiniboine River) 5. Assiniboine River (from Souris River to the Red River) 6. Lake Winnipeg 7. Lake Manitoba Identification of Important Water Quality Parameters for Agricultural Use 103 (i) Water for Irrigation Purposes (ii) Livestock and Poultry Water Supply Effects of Current Water Quality and Quantity on Current and FutureAgriculturaland Canada 111 in Use (i) Current and Future Flooding Problems (ii)Irrigation (iii) Livestock and Poultry EffectsAgriculturalGDUon of Water Uses 112 1. Red River (from International Boundary to Lake Winnipeg) 2. Souris River (from International Boundary to Assiniboine River) 3. Assiniboine River (from Souris River to the Red River) 4. Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba VI. RURAI.VI. DOMESTIC WATER USE 124 Introduction 124 Methodology 124 Current Water Use 125 Future Water Use 125 Identification of Current Water Quality Parameters for Rural Domestic Use 125 Effects of Current Water Quality and Quantity on Current and Future Rural Domestic Use 127 PAGE (g) Effects of GDU on Rural Domestic Water Use 127 1. Red River (from International Boundary to Lake Winnipeg) 2. Souris River (from International Boundary to Assiniboine River) 3. Assiniboine River (from Souris River to the Red River) 4. Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba VII. RECREATIONAL WATER USE WATER RECREATIONAL VII. 129 (a) Introduction 129 (b) Methodology 130 (c) CurrentRecreational Use 130 Future Recreational Use Recreational (d) Future 134 (e) Water Quality Parameters of Importance for Recreational Use139 (f) Effects of Current Water Quality and Quantity on Present and Future Recreational Uses 139 (i) Water Quality (ii) Water Quantity (g) Effects of GDU on Recreational Water Use 142 (h) Conclusions 143 FISH AND WILDLIFE 144 (a) Introduction 144 (b) Methodology 144 (c) Current and Future Uses 14 6 Recreational Commercial Subsistence Other Use Values Special Designations (d) Effects of Current Water Quality and Quantity on Current and Future Fish and Wildlife 153 (i) Water Quantity (ii) Water Quality (e) Effects of GDU 157 Wildlife Losses Fish Losses Other Aspects (f ) Summary 162 OTHER USES 163 (a) Effects of GDU on Mining 163 (b) Effects of GDU on Forestry 163 (c) Impact of GDU on Archaeological Research 163 PAGE x ALTERNATIVES 168 1ntroducti.on 168 (1) Replacement of Class A Soils (Plan I and Plan 11) 169 (2) Wetland Restoration Concept and Other Waterfowl Production Modifications 17 0 (3) Elimination of Direct Surface Water Connections 171 (4) Lining of Velva Canal (Plan1 or Plan 11) 173 (5) Combination I 17 5 (6) Combination I1 17 6 (7) Combination I11 178 XI GDU EFFECTS ONUSES: A SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSION 180 (a) QuantifiedEffects 180 (b) UnquantifiedEffects 184 (c) GeneralEffects 185 (d) Alternatives to the Authorized Plan 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY 190 (xii) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES PAGE D.I.l Reference Map: GarrisonDiversion Study 2 D.III.l Unit Chemical Costs of Municipal Water Treatment 54 D.V.l ManitobaCrop Reporting Districts 89 D.VII.l Recreational Use Study Area 131 D.VII.2 GeneralizedRecreation Capability 132 136 D.VII.3 RecreationOpportunities D.VII.4 RecreationPotential 140 (xiii) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES TABLES PAGE D. 11.1 SelectedNorthDakota Water QualityStandards 14 D.II.2 SelectedMinnesota Water QualityStandards 15 D. 11.3 SelectedManitoba Water QualityObjectives: Souris River 16 D.II.4 SelectedManitoba Water Quality Objectives: Assiniboine River 17 D.II.5 SelectedManitoba Water QualityObjectives: Red River 18 D.II.6 Selected International Red River Pollution Board Ob j ec t ives 19 D.III.l MunicipalPopulation and Sources of Municipal Water Supply,1975, 1985 and 2000 22 D.III.2 Municipal Water Withdrawals,1975, 1985 and2000 25 D.III.3 TreatmentMunicipalforCost Supplies (1975) 34 D.III.4 Summary of Water Quality Data - Red River (fromInternational Boundary Assiniboineto River) 37 D.III.5 Effectof GDU onMunicipal Use - Emerson, Morrisand St. JeanBaptiste 38 D.III.6 Summary of Water Quality Data - Red River (from Assiniboine River to LakeWinnipeg) 39 D.III.7 Effect of GDUMunicipal on Use - Selkirk 40 D.III.8 Summary of Water Quality Data - Souris River (fromInternational Boundary Assiniboineto River) 42 D.III.9 Effectof GDUMunicipal on Use - Souris43 D. 111.10 Summary of Water Quality Data - Assiniboine River (from Souris(from Riverthe to Red River) 47 D. 111.11 Effects of GDU onMunicipal Use - Portage la Prairie 48 D.III.12 TJnit ChemicalCosts for Municipal Water Supplies in 1975 53 (xiv) TABLES PAGE D.III.13 Impactof GDU onMunicipal Water Supply Costs (' 000 dollars) 56 D.IV.1 IndustrialFutures for the Manitoba Portion of the GDU Study Area 4 o D.IV.2 Industrial Water Use, 1975,1985 and 2000 (United States andCanada) 62 3.IV.3 SelectedQuality Requirements of Water at Point of Use for Steam Generationand Cooling in Heat Exchangers h4 D.IV.4 SelectedQuality Requirements of Water at Point of Use by the Canned,Dried and Frozen Fruits and Ve getables Industry Vegetables 65 D.IV.5 Impact of GDU on Water SupplyCosts at Manitoba Hydro 7u D.V.l Summary of CropProduction Manitoba,in 1975 74 D.V.2 Summary of CurrentIrrigated Acreage (by Crop) From Surface Water Sourcesin the Manitoba Portion of the Study Area Study the of 75 D.V.3 Red River Basin (U. S. ) , Land Capabilityand Present Land Use 8 4 D.V.4 Red,Sheyenne and Wild Rice Rivers(U.S.): Present Agricultural Water Use 85 D.V.5 Souris River Basin (U.S.), PresentAgricultural Land Use 8b D.V. 6 SourisRiver Basin (U.S.), PresentAgricultural Water Use 87 D.V.7 Manitoba Land UseCrop by Districts, 1971 88 D.V.8 Red River Basin(Manitoba): Agricultural Water Use, 1975 9 0 D.V. 9 Souris River Basin(Manitoba): Agricultural Water Use, 1975 91 D.V.10 Assiniboine River (Manitoba):Agricultural Water Use, 1975 92 TABLES PAGE D.V.ll Red River Basin(U.S.): Potentially Irrigable Lands 95 D.V.12 Red, Sheyenne and Wild Rice Rivers(U. S.) : Projected Agricultural Water Use 96 D.V.13 Souris River Basin(U.S.): Projected Agricultural Water Use 97 D.V.14 Red River (Manitoba): Irrigation Land Suitability Classes 98 D.V.15 Red River Basin (Manitoba): Projected Agricultural Water Use 99 D.V.16 Souris River (Manitoba): Irrigation Land Suitability Classes 100 D.V.17 Souris River Basin (Manitoba): Projected Agricultural Water Use 100 D.V.18 Assiniboine River (Manitoba): Irrigation Land Suitability Classes 101 D.V.19 Assiniboine River Basin: Projected Agricultural Water Use 102 D.V.20 TolerancesSalt of AgriculturalCrops104 D.V.21 Recommended Maximum Concentrationof Trace Elements in Irrigation Waters 108 D.V.22 A Guide to theUse of Saline Waters for Livestock and Poultry 109 D.V.23 Recommended Limits of Concentration of Some Potentially Toxic Substances in Drinking Water for Livestock and Poultry and Livestock for 110 D.V.24 TDSand SAR Values, Red River atEmerson 114 D.V.25 TDS andSAR Values, Red River atSelkirk 115 D.V.26 Leaching Fractions: Red River at Emerson, Manitoba 116 D.V.27 Leaching Fractions: Red River at Selkirk, Manitoba 117 D.V.28 TDS and SAR Values, Souris at Westhope, North Dakota 118 (xvi) TABLES PAGE D.V.29 Leaching Fractions, Souris River near Westhope, North Dakota 11 9 D.V.30 TDS and SAR Values, Assiniboine near Portage la Prairie 122 D.V.31Leaching Fractions: Assiniboine River at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba 123 D.VI.1 Rural Domestic Water Use in Canada and U.S. from Surface Water Sources 126 D.VII.l Classification of Water-Based Recreation, excluding Fish and Wildlife 129 D.VII.2 Recreation Capability: Summary of Acreages from Canada Land Inventory 133 D.VII.3 Calculation of Recreation Man-Days Using CORDS- Based Methodology 135 D.VII.4 Estimated Recreation Man-Days of Activity 1975,1985 and 2000 137 D.VII.5 Allocation of Current Recreation Man-Days (Millions) to Sectors of Study Area 138 D.VII. 6 Suggested Water Quality Criteria for Contact Recreation 14 1 D.VIII.l Baseline Summary, Recreational Fish and Wildlife Uses in Manitoba 14 7 D.VIII.2 Baseline Summary, Commercial Fish and Wildlife Uses in Manitoba 148 D.VIII.3 Baseline Summary, Subsistence Fish and Wildlife Uses in Manitoba 151 D.VIII.4 Manitoba Indian Reserves Located in the Study Area, 1974 152 D.VIII.5 Areas where Indian and Metis Derive Major Income from Guiding and Outfitting in the Study Area 153 D.VIII.6 Special Area Designations in the Study Area 154 (xvii) TABLES PAGE D.VIII.7 International Biological Program Sites in the Study Area 156 D.VIII.8 Biological Committee's Best Prediction of Percent Reduction in Population Sizeof Four Commercially Important Fish Species in Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba as a result of Introduction of Exotic Fish Species 159 D.VIII.9 Walleye, Sauger and Whitefish Value to Lake Winnipeg Commercial Fishermen, 1972-1976 160 D.VIII.10 Walleye, Sauger and Whitefish Value to Lake Manitoba Commercial Fishermen, 1971-1976 161 D. IX. 1 Mining Activities in the Study Area 164 (xviii) APPENDIX D: PART TWO LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT PAGE D.I.l Approved Plan of Study: Uses Committee 201 D.II1.I Red River: Minnesota Municipal Water Data, 1975, 1985 and 2000 207 D.III.2 Red River: North Dakota Municipal Water Data, 1975, 1985 and 2000 209 D.III.3 Sheyenne River: North Dakota Municipal WaterData, 1975, 1985 and 2000 21 0 D.IIT.4 Wild Rice River: North Dakota, Municipal Water Data, 1975, 1985 and 2000 212 D.III.5 Souris River: North Dakota Municipal Water Data, 1975, 1985 and 2000 214 D.III.6 Population and Water Use Data for Study Area, Municipalities with Surface Water Supplies, 1974-75 215 D.III.7 Population Forecasts Methodo1og;r 216 A. Sub Provincial Population Forecasts: Methodology B. Population Projection A (High), Manitoba 1975, 1985 and 2000 C. Population Projection B (Medium), Manitoba, 1975, 1985 and2000 D. Population Projection C (Low), Manitoba, 1975, 1985 and 2000 D.III.8 Forecast of Municipal WaterUse for Manitoba, 1975, 1985 and 2000 224 D.IV.l Industrial Water Use in Manitoba 22 5 D.V.1 Projected Irrigation Water Use in the Canadian Portion of the Study Area 234 D.V.2 Land Classification Standards for Sprinkler Irrigation Suitability, Canada 239 Canada Suitability, D.V.3 A. EstimateSeasonal Consumptive Use of Water 24 1 by Various Crops B. Measured Consumptive Use at Maximum Yield for Principal Field Crops in Southern Alberta (Taber 242 and Vauxhal, Alberta, 1950-1961) (xix) ATTACHMENT PAGE D.V.4 Irrigation Water Analysis and Determinationof Crop Effects:Post-ProjectCrop Conditions 243 D.V. 5 Damage to Agriculture due to Incremental Flooding on the Souris River 254 River Souris the on D.V. 6 Potential Benefits of Increases in Streamflow- Irrigation 2 64 D.V.7 United States Department of Agriculture Land Ca pability Classification System 265 Classification SystemCapability D.VI.l Current Rural Domestic Water Use, Surface Water Supplied 272 D.VI.2 Current and Projected Rural Domestic Water Use fromGroundwater Sources (all Water Systems) 275 D.VI.3 A. (Map) Indian Band Communities that may be Affected by GDU 276 GDU by Affected B. (Table) Manitoba Indian Band Communities that may be Affectedby be may that GDU 277 C. Population of Indian Bands Located in the Study Area 278 D. SummaryD. Waterof Uses Indianby Bands 279 D.VII.l Methodology for Determining Recreational Water Use 28 0 D.VIII.l Environment Components List for Fish, Wildlife and Recreational Uses, Manitoba 28 9 Recreational Manitoba28 andUses, D.VIIT.2 BaselineRecreation Use Data for Study Areas 2 91 D.VIII.3 BaselineCommercial Use Data for Study Areas 296 D.VIII.4 BaselineSubsistence Use Data for Study Areas 3 03 D. IX. 1 Forest Value 306 D. IX. 2 A. Known Archaeological Sites on Upper Souris River 309 River Souris B. Known Archaeological Sites Near Confluence of Souris and AssiniboineSourisand Rivers309 of C. Known Archaeological Siteson Souris and AssiniboineRivers, East to SpruceWoods 31 0 Provincial Park D. Known Archaeological Sites on Assiniboine River, East of SpruceWoods Provincial Park311 REPORTOF THE USES CONMITTEE I. INTRODUCTION Water is oneof society's most valuablenatural resources. Almost all activities,ranging from the provision of drinking water torecreation, dependupon adequate supplies of water. Water is criticallyimportant in southern14anitoba, a portionof which comprises the study area, because ofperiodic water shortagesand because most of the provincial population andeconomic activity is concentratedhere. The GarrisonDiversion Unit (GDU), as currentlyplanned, will affectwater uses in southern Manitoba. The taskassigned to the Uses Com- mittee is todefine and analyze these effects. For the most part, the studyfocuses on Canada, although where data from the U.S. is required, it hasbeen incorporated. TheCommittee has attempted to include all wateruses potentially affected by GDU, althoughcoverage of various uses anddepth of analyses vary with the quantity and quality of data available. (a) Terms ofReference The InternationalGarrison Diversion Study Board (IGDSB) has directed the Uses Committee todescribe present and projected water uses and theeffects of current water quantityand quality on these uses. The Uses Committee was alsodirected to evaluate the impacts on these uses arising fromchanges in water quality and quantity as a result ofthe completion andoperation of GDU. To dischargethis responsibility, the Uses Committee produced a plan of studywnich was submittedto and approved by the Board (AttachmentD.I.l). (b) Scopeof theStudy The studyincludes the drainage area directly affected by GDU return flows, namely,the main stem of thered River, the Lower Souris, Sheyenneand Wild Rice Riverbasins of the United States, andthe Lower Souris, Lower Assiniboineand Red Riverbasins in Canada, as well as Lakes Winnipegand Manitoba (Figure D.I.l). Approximately 55 percentof the study area, or63,000 square miles, is in Canada.This excludes the surface areas ofLake Manitoba (1,800 squaremiles) and Lake Winnipeg (9,430 squaremiles). Outside the study area, asdefined, streams entering orleaving LakeWinnipeg and Lake Manitoba may also be affected by possible transferof Nissouri River Basinbiota. The inventoryof current uses covers theentire study area butthe emphasis of this report is onthe effects of returnflows from GDU onuses in the Canadian portion of the study area. Although this Appendixfocuses primarily on the effects on present uses in Canada, it alsoexamines effects upon reasonablyanticipated uses to 1985 and 2000. 1 I 31Vld 9161 isnenv Ow08 AanlS NOIStl3Ala NOSltlMV'O lVNOIlVNtl31NI AanlS NOISM3hla NOSIWV'D NOISSlWW03 1NIOP lVNOllVN(131N1 (c) Study Area Description Location Souris River: The Souris River rises in southeastern Saskatchewan and flows ina southeasterly direction into the United States in northwestern iiorth Dakota. It makes a gradual loop in North Dakota and enters Manitoba north of Westhope, North Dakota and flows in a northeasterly direction to join the Assiniboine River southeast of Brandon, Manitoba. Its length is approxi- mately 729 miles and it drains an area 24,200 of square miles, more than halfof which is located in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (FigureD.I.l). This study is concerned with the segmentof the Souris River downstream from its con- fluence with the Wintering River in North Dakota. Assiniboine River: The Assiniboine River rises in eastern Saskatch- ewan and flows in a southeasterly direction through Manitoba joining the Red River at Winnipeg. Its total length is 590 miles. However, this study is concerned only with the segmentof the Assiniboine River between its confluence with the Souris and Red rivers, a distanceof 190 miles, which drains an areaof approximately 2,000 square miles (FigureD.I.1). Red River: The Red River begins at the junctionof the Bois de Sioux and Ottertail rivers in Minnesota.It flows north forming the border between Minnesota and North Dakota and crosses the- CanadaU.S. border near Emerson, Manitoba. The river covers a distanceof approximately 550 miles before entering the southern end of Lake Winnipeg. Some440 miles of the river's length are in the United States. The drainage ofarea the Red Kiver at the international boundary 40,200is square miles, and upstream of the Assiniboine River at Winnipeg, it 48,000 is square miles. Although a large numberof tributaries flow into the Red River, only those potentially affected by GDU of are concern in this report. Tllese include, in additionto the Assiniboine River, the Sheyenne and Wild Rice rivers. The Wild Rice River originates in southern North Dakota and flows northeast into the Red River, draining an of area about 2,100 square miles. The Sheyenne River originates in north central North Dakota and drains an area of approximately8,870 square miles, joiningthe Red River near Fargo (FigureU.I.l). Lake Winnipeg: Lake Winnipeg is oneof the largest lakes in Canada, covering an areaof approximately 9,430 square miles, The south- ern end of the lake is approximately35 miles northeast of the City of Winnipeg and the lake extends north for approximately240 miles. The main tributaries from the west and south are the Red, Dauphin and Saskatchewan rivers and, from the east, the Berens, Bloodvein and Winnipeg rivers. Lake Winnipeg drains north to Hudson Bay via the Nelson River. Lake Hanitoba and Delta Marsh: Lake Manitoba covers an area of about 1,800 square miles. Delta Marsh is located at the southern end and covers an areaof 220 square miles. Lake Manitoba drains into Lake 3 Winnipeg via the Fairford River, Lake St. Martin and the Dauphin River. During periods of high discharge, water from the Assiniboine River periodically enters Delta Marsh and Lake Manitoba via the Portage Diver- sion, which diverts flood waters from the Assiniboineto RiverLake Manitoba above Portage La Prairie (FigureD.I.l). Geology, Physiographyand Soils The study area is basically a flat to gently undulating plain, broken in placesby topographic relief ranging up to 1,500 feet. This landscape is a response to the geologic structure and physiography of the area. Two major geologic events have shaped the physiography of the area: periodic inundation by large seas which lasted over periods of several million years and the geologically very recent Pleistocene glacia- tion. It is the latter which has determined the physiographic nature of most of the study area. Limestones, formed by deposition of marine life in ancient seas over the course of millions of years, accompany sandstones and conglomerates as the bedrock of the study area. Differential erosion since recession of these seas formed the Manitoba escarpment, which trends northwest- southeast across the centre of the study area. The Pembina Hills in the Canadian portion of the area are an exampleof local relief along this escarpment. Elsewhere, the escarpment may be encountered as a gentle rise to the higher prairie level of Saskatchewan. The Turtle Mountains comprise another topo- graphically high region of the study area. This region is an erosional remnant of relatively hard Cretaceous sandstones and conglomerates which once covered the area more extensively. Thus, the major topographic relief (or lack of it) in the study area reflects the geologic structure formed over many millions of years. While the major topographic features which comprise the study area are attributable to bedrock geologic structure, most of the area is blanketed with material deposited during the Wisconsin stage of the Pleistocene glaciation. The Lake Agassiz Plain covers the eastern part of the area generally known as the Red River Valley. The Western Drift Prairie Uplands, broken by several lake plains, deltas, and the Turtle Mountains, comprise the western part of the study area. The Lake Agassiz Plain is underlain by glacial till, deposited by the advancing Wisconsin glacier. Lake Agassiz itself was a very large post-glacial lake formed as the ice front retreated to the north. The lake covered extensive portionsof southern Manitoba and northern North Dakota. As a result, lacustrine silts and clays, deposited in the lake, lie on top of the glacial till, forming much of the surficial materialof the Red River Valley. In addition, as the receding glacier retreated to the north, meltwater discharging from the ice-front to Lake Agassiz formed a network of streams. The larger meltwater channels formed four prominent 4 deltasalong the western shoreline of the lake: the Assiniboine (the largest),the Sheyenne,Pembina and Elk River Deltas. These are marked by deltaicdeposits of sand, silt andgravel. Lake Agassiz itself decreased in size as theice-front retreated, opening alternative drainage courses tothe north, thereby eliminating the lake's water supply. A series of shorelinebeaches extending the full length of the Red River Valleymark thegradual recession of the lake. Thus, in the Red River Valley,the surface material consistsof (1) some outcropping of glacial till, (2) lacustrineclays deposited in LakeAgassiz, (3) deltaicsands and gravels, and (4) beachsands. The area is relativelyflat, an expression of its bedrocktopography and its post-glacialgeologic history. Soilsderived from glacial till and flat, smooth, finetextured, lakeplain sediments are generallynot suited to irrigation development becauseof low permeabilities in the substrata and poor surface drainage. Soils with the greatest irrigation potential are confinedmore to the coursetextured lacustrine, beach, delta and alluvial materials thatextend alongthe western shoreline of Lake Agassiz. These soils haveblack sandy loam surfacehorizons and sandy loam to sandy subsoils. The WesternDrift Prairie Uplands region is a glacial till plain formed when the basal load of the advancing glacier was depositedover the flatbedrock of the area. Topographicallythis area is relativelyflat but,in contrast to the lake plain, it undulatesgently as is characteristic ofmost till plains.This till plain is coveredover much of its area by lacustrine materials which were deposited in glacialLakes Souris and brandon.These lakes, like Lake Agassiz, formed in front of the receding glacierand, similar tothe LakeAgassiz Plain, are generallyflat. Deltaic materials, formedwhere riversonce entered the glacial lakes, are noticeable as subtle rises fromthe generally flat lake plains. The area alsocontains a number of aeolian, or wind-blown deposits,which may give local reliefs up to 30 feet andundulating topography of the type associated with sand dunes. The glacieralso blanketed the Turtle Mountains, Pembina Hills and Tiger Hills areas with till. Soilsof the Souris River basin vary greatly depending upon the typeof landform on whichthey are developed. The soils developedin the glacial till area havepoor internal drainage due to low permeabilities. These soils are loamy-texturedand excellent for dryland production of small grains. However, they are generallyunsuited for irrigation because of theirpoor drainage characteristics, The soilsdeveloped on deltaic, alluvialand outwash deposits have good internaldrainage, and are loamy intexture. Because they are alsohigh in organic matter and are naturally fertile,they are excellentsoils for irrigation. Soils in the aeolian areas are very thin with extremely high permeabilities and low water holding capacities. They are notirrigable and are suitableonly for pasture. ThePembina and Tiger hills areas andthe Turtle Mountains are also unsuit- able for irrigation because the soils are dense,with low permeability, and alsobecause of the topography. 5 Riversformed after the glacial lakes drained from the area have etchedtheir way intothe lake and till plainsto form present drainage pat terns. C1ima t e " The climateof the Souris, Assiniboine and Red Riverbasins is markedlycontinental in nature with cold winters, relatively warm summers, and daily wea.therconditions which vary widely. The mid-continentallocation is largelyre.sponsible for considerable fluctuations in seasonal temperatures, precipitation,winds and cloud cover. Mean annualtemperatures in the Souris, Assiniboine and Red River basinsrange from 37°F inthe north to 43°F in the south. Temperature extremesin the basins have historically ranged from -60'F to 120°F. Mean monthlytemperatures range from about 4°F in January to about 70°F in July. Inspring, the last frostcan be expected around the middle of May; in fall, thefirst frost occurs around the middle of September. This range of dates givesthe region a frost-freegrowing season of 100 to135 days. Precipitationin the form of rain, hail, sleet and snow ranges from15 to 24 inchesannually over the three basins, with the larger amounts fallingin Minnesota. Snowfall averages about 30 inchesin the southern portionsof the basins to about 55 inchesaround Lake Winnipeg. Approxi- mately 60 to 70 percentof the annual precipitation occurs as rainfall duringthe growing season, May throughSeptember. The basinsare noted for the prevalence of high gusty winds. Wind velocities in excess of 70 mph havebeen recorded in all portions of the area. Prevailingwinds are northwesterly,averaging about 10 mph withthe highestvelocities generally occurring during April and May. The sunshines approximately 70 percentof the daylight hours during the summer (Junethrough August)for an average of 10 to 11 hoursdaily. During the winter (December throughFebruary) overcast conditions are morepredominant and allow an averageof only four to five hours of daily sunshine. -Water Resources -Souris River: The Souris River Basincovers about 24,000 square miles. A largeportion of the drainage area is non-contributing. This area includesportions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canadaand NorthDakota and 30 square miles ofMontana inthe United States. Small wetlandsc0ve.r about 600,000 acres ofthis area, and a series ofnatural lakesin the 'Turtle Mountains covers an additional 30,000 acres. Streamflow of theSouris River is highlyvariable with annual runoff at Minot,North Dakota ranging from 940 acre-feet in 1931 and 1937 toabout 686,000 acre-feetin 1904. Theaverage flow of the river from 1931 to 11970 at Westhope,North Dakota was 137,000acre-feet, of whichapproximately 76,000 acre-feetoriginated iu Canada. 6 In addition to the extreme annual variations in flows, the Souris River also exhibits a wide range of monthly runoff and instantaneous dis- charges. The river usually reaches its peak flow in April or May, due to snowmelt and spring rain, and fallsto its lowest stage during the winter. There have been extended periodsof no flow in the river and maximum discharges as high as10,000 cfs have been recorded at the international boundary near Westhope. Groundwater in the Souris River Basin is obtained mainly from aquifers in Pleistocene glacial drift, such as glacial drainage channel deposits, lake deltas, outwash deposits and small bodies of sand and gravel interbedded with till. Small yields of water are obtained from bedrock aquifers underlying the glacial drift. The Cretaceous Fox Hills Sandstone and Hell Creek formations may yield small quantities of groundwater sufficient only for small industrial, municipal and individual domestic or stockwater supplies. Estimates of groundwater in the basin show approximately 2,775,000 acre-feet. Red River: The Red River and its tributaries drain about111,000 square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. This area includes approximately49,350 square miles in the United States and62,500 square miles in Canada. Large portions of the drainage area could be classified as non-contributing. Streamilow of the Red River has been highly variable in the past. Annual runoff at the international boundary near Emerson, Manitoba averaged 2,308,000 acre-feet per year from1912 to 1974 but instantaneous discharges during that period ranged from one cfs1937 into 95,000 cfs in 1950. Runoff at Lockport, Manitoba (immediately upstream from Lake Winnipeg) averaged 5,690,000 acre-feet per year from1962 to 1973 with a low of 530 cfs in 1967 to a high of 90,600 cfs in 1966. With this variability in its flow, reservoirs play a critical role in regulating the Red River for water supply and other purposes. The five rrtain impoundments in the basin provide about290,000 acre-feet of storage and are all located in the United States, operated by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Storage in the formof small wetlands and natural lakes is substantial, Groundwater in the Red River Basin is obtained primarily from aquifers in Pleistocene glacial till. This material includes some water yielding sands that form many of the basin's better aquifers. Estimates of groundwater in the basin show approximately39,000,000 acre-feet of water. Large groundwater flows are generally not available. Most of the basin is dependent on bedrock and minor drift aquifers for these groundwater supplies. Assiniboine River: The Assiniboine River drains an area of about 61,800 square miles in the United States and Canada, including24,200 the square mile Souris River Basin which is a major tributary. The Assiniboine River joins the Red River near Winnipeg, Manitoba and comprises more than half of the Red River drainage basin. 7 As is typical of the prairie streams, streamflow of the Assiniboine River is highly variable. During the period from 1913 to 1973 the average annual flow of the river at Headingley1,180,000 was acre-feet, with a maximum discharge of 21,700 cfs in 1916 and a minimum discharge20 cfs of in 1936. In the areaof study, groundwater of the Assiniboine River Basin is derived mainly from glacial recession features, primarily glacial channel deposits, lake deltas, outwash, etc. Population and Economic Activity: Approximately 1.3 million persons reside in the study area, according to U.S.1970 and 1971 Canadian population data. Of this total, just under 780,000, or60 percent, reside in Canada, and 532,000 in theU.S. About 80 percent of Manitoba's total population lives in the study area. Population data for individual municipalities are given in Attachments D.III.l through D.III.7, and are discussed in more detail in Chapter D.111. Overall population growth and per capita incomes are lower than the respective national averages. Past trends in both countries indicate migration of population from the rural areas and the smaller centers to the larger cities. Population forecasts in both Canada and theU.S. show that this trend is likely to continue. Agriculture dominates the economy in almost all parts of the study area, which constitutes a large portion of the ''bread ofbasket North America". The area's agriculture is more productive and diverse, particularly in the Red River Valley, than the grazing and cereal economies further west, because of greater availability of moisture and the high fertility of the alluvial and lacustrine soils. Principal agricultural crops in the area include wheat, barley, hay, oats, flax, corn, soybeans, potatoes, sunflowers and sugar beets. Irrigation covers a very small proportion of the area, 66,000 acres in theU.S. and 2,000 acres in Canada. Most irrigation systems are privately owned. GDU would be the first large public irrigation network in the study area. Manufacturing accounts for a large proportionof the study area's net production. In the U.S. part of the basin, manufacturing industries include food processors and other natural resource processing activities. In Manitoba, the manufacturing base is a diversified one, with the Winnipeg area dominating. Again, food processing is important, along with some heavy industry such as steel fabricating, clothing manufacture and many small secondary manufacturing industries. Outside of the Winnipeg area, the manufacturing base is very small. Thermal power generation by Winnipeg Hydro and Manitoba Hydro is important locally. In general, throughout the study area, economic growth has been slow because the area has a comparatively small share of national rapid-growth industries. Water- related recreation opportunities exist throughout the study area, but serve mainly the resident population. 8 (d) Water Use Terminology Water use consists of withdrawal uses, in situ uses and in-stream or flow uses. Withdrawal uses are those which remove water from its source, distribute it to various water-using activities and return all or ofpart it after use to the source. Withdrawal uses include municipal, rural domestic, industrial, agricultural and thermal and nuclear power generation. In situ uses are those which use water without withdrawing it. These include fisheries, wildlife and most forms of water-based recreation. In-stream or flow uses are also non-withdrawal. They are distinguishable from in I situ uses because they take advantage of water in its moving state. In-stream uses are hydro-electric power generation and navigation. In-stream uses are important to this study only for canoeing, boating and some forms of contact recreation. The characteristicsof withdrawal use which are of concern are intake (the amountof water withdrawn from the watercourse) and consumption (the amount of water actually ''used up" or not returned to the water course). The most common types of water consumption are evaporation, transpiration, incorporation into products and escape from water distribution systems. Water consumption rates for municipal water use average 20 about percent of total withdrawal, about five percentof withdrawal for industry and often in excess of 50 percent for irrigation. In situ water uses require a different approach to quantification than do withdrawal uses. For in situ uses, such as the maintenance of fish or wildlife habitat and water-based recreation, it is more important to discuss water in relation to the surrounding land resources and in terms of participation in water-based activities as well as in of terms minimum flows required to maintain the resource base. Thus, in the recreation, fish and wildlife sections, emphasis is placed not only on populations of wildlife and fish, but also on acreagesof habitat, hunting and fishing ex- penditures, participation rates, and other indirect measuresof the importance of water to sustain these activities. (e) General Approach to the Study The evaluation of the impacts GDU of on water uses in Canada involved multi-dimensional consideration: riparian aspects of water quality and quantity, engineering, economic, biologic, geogrlaphic, aesthetic and others. The relevant methodologies developed to accomplish this complex task had to be use-specific because of the widely divergent characterof different uses of water, These methodologies are dealt with in detail in the appro- priate sections of Chapters D.111 through D.IX. The short time frameof study precluded any effort toward basic or primary research. For example, there was insufficient time to do exten- sive field investigations of water uses to determine the quantity of water 9 withdrawn. Hence several secondary data sources originating from federal and provincial departments, academic institutions, and private studies were utilized to obtain the needed information. These data sources are docu- mented in the numbered bibliography attached to this Appendix. In general, it was easier to collect information regarding the U.S. part of the basin, sincea comprehensive study by the Souris-Red-Rainy River Basins Commission provided most of the base data. For Canada,on the other hand, no such comprehensive source was available. To compensate, much original work had to be done, especially the forecasting of future water use. In several instances data and information were collected from individuals primarily responsible for implementing federal and/or provincial programs and policies. In most instances these constitute unpublished data collected for specific purposes. While these data were used to arrive at point estimates or predictions of water use in the future, using accepted standards in research methodology as far as possible, they should be con- sidered only as best estimates of the concerned experts. The base year for current data is 1975. Projections for 1985 and 2000 were made using the considerations outlined above as a base for reasonably anticipated future uses. The Uses Committee followed the Approved Plan of Study prepared by IGDSB to develop the basic approach. The Committee met at regular intervals during the course of the study to discuss general progress, to determine future tasks and to exchange information and ideas. These meetings also provided opportunities doto much of the actual workof com- piling and collating data and writing preliminary draftsof the reports. In these work sessions, the Committee functioned through the set-up of three sub-committees: municipal and industrial, agricultural and rural domestic, and recreation, fish and wildlife. In the later stages of the study, the Committee had to rely heavily on the work of other committees (Water Quality, Water Quantity, Biology and Engineering). In the final stages, a report-writing sub-committee was formed to prepare this Appendix. (f) Report Outline The Report of the Uses Committee constitutes Appendixof the D final report of IGDSB. The Report is divided into two parts: Part One contains the main Appendix and Part Two the attachments. The scope, methodology and organization of this Appendix is outlined in Chapter D.I. The second chapter outlines the current water quality standards established in North Dakota, Minnesota and Manitoba, against which different typesof water uses are analyzed in subsequent chapters. Chapters D.111 through D.IX deal with individual water uses which are municipal, industrial, agricultural, rural domestic, recreation, fish and wildlife and other uses, respectively. These chapters on water uses basically follow a standardized pattern and cover (a) introduction, (b) methodology, (c) current uses, (d) future 10 usesfor 1985 and 2000, (e)effect of current water qualityand quantity on currentand future water uses,(f) effects of GDU on water usesand (8) summary andconclusions for each use. Alternatives to GDU as cur- rently authorized and their probable effects on water uses are discussed inChapter D.X. The finalchapter provides a synthesisand discussion ofthe effects of theauthorized GDU planand alternative modifications. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many personsassisted in the preparation of this report and thecommittee gratefully acknowledges their support. Assistance of a technicalnature was providedby: W. Michalyna, M.J. Van Schaik, P. Haluchak, L. Lillie, P. Partridge, E. Griffin, D. Wadell, D. Kraft, G. Racz, L. Rudgers, R.J. Soper, W. Andrel,L.Pettipas, D. Donachuk, M. Samp, P. Power, G.D. Lewis, M.C. Taylor, G.W. Griebenow, S.J. Wentz, B.O. Clark, J. Dolan, J. Hamphill, M. Lafortune, D. Witty, L. Bowles, C. Scott, R. Sopuck, D. Moffatt, R. Moshenko, D. Rannard, P. Page, R. Barker, G. Nelson, L. Colpitts, R. Jones, T. Muir, M. Mattson, K. Johnson, R. Carmichael, R. Bridge, A. Campbell, I. McKay and M. Goatcher. Clerical assistance was providedby L. Black Typingwas done by: Mrs. V. Barry, Mrs. S. Wilsonand Miss G. Cunningham 11 11. SUMMARY OF CURRENT IN-STREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (a) Introduction In this chapter, three water quality - management terms are used. Water quality criteria are scientific requirements on whicha decision or judgement may be based concerning the suitability of water qualityto support a given water use. In other words criteria are use-specific. Water quality standards are formally adopted documents which contain a listing of beneficial water uses along with the criteria necessary to protect those uses. Water quality standards in the United States, once adopted by the states and approved by the federal government, are legally enforceable. The standards may be enforced directlyor, asis more commonly the case, indirectly through various state and federal permits. Water quality objectives are similar to standards in that they set forth the quality con- ditions required to protect given water uses, but they lack the force of law. Thus the principal functionof water quality objectives is to set forth the goals of public water quality management, as compared to standards which provide a basis for both planning and regulatory actions. Water quality standards have been adopted by the states of North Dakota and Minnesota for all major streams affected by GDU.At the time of this report, there are no official water quality standards established for lakes and streams in Manitoba. However, interim water quality objectives are being developed by the provincial government. Although these do not have the benefit of official sanction, they are consideredas guidelines for the purpose of thisstudy, Concurrent with the developmentof intra- provincial objectives in Manitoba a joint federal/provincial working group is also developing objectives for the international waters flowing into Manitoba. Also, the International Red River Pollution Board of IJCthe has adopted water quality objectives for the Red River at the international boundary. Although the approaches used by the United States and Canada in the protection of ambient water quality may be somewhat different, many of the principles upon which the standards or objectivesbased are are very similar. These include: 1. Any deterioration of water qualityis undesirable beyond certain limits regardless of cause. Therefore such deterioration should be prevented, controlled or abated, or water quality enhanced, by applying the best management techniques and technological methods practicable at present and progressively practicable in the future. 2. Experience with ecological problems dictates that the protection of aquatic systems from adverse impacts of man’s activities, including the discharge of pollutants, should be an essential objective of water resource management programs. It is clear, then, that the setting 12 of water quality objectives or standards must include environmental requirements as well as consideration for man's consumption and use. 3. It is necessary to establish clear objectives against which an assessment of probable water quality impacts of developments can be evaluated. Tables D.II.l through D.II.5 summarize, foreach use classification, the constituent limits in the water quality standards for those substances which GDU will affect significantly in terms of either ambient concentra- tions or loadings. The actual standards or objectives contain limits for many more constituents than are contained in these tables. Many constituents are not included in this analysis becauseGDU is not expected to affect their present levels (24). Where specific criteria are common to two or more use classifications, the more restrictive value will apply. Water quality standards for North Dakota and Ninnesota, and Manitoba's water quality objectives are available from the respective state or provincial governments. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize briefly the most relevant featuresof the appropriate standards and objectives. (b) North Dakota Water Quality Standards The North Dakota Water Quality Standards utilize a stream classification system based primarily upon the degree of treatment required to meet State Health Department drinking water standards. Consideration is also given to the suitability of the stream for fish propagation and water-based recreation. Class I: Capable of meeting drinking water standards after coagulation, settling, filtration and chlorination. Suitable for propagation and preservation of native fish species. Suitable for water-based recreation. Class IA: Same as Class I, except requires softening to meet drinking water standards. Class 11: Some additional treatment may be required over IA. Low average flows and periods of no-flow limit the beneficial uses of the stream. Class 111: Requires saline water treatment methods to meet drinking water standards. Questionable for beneficial use because of low flow and prolonged periods of no flow. 13 The Red River hasbeen classified as Class I. The SourisRiver hasbeen classified as Class IA. A partiallisting of the water quality criteria associated with the use classifications for the Souris and Red rivers is containedin Table D.II.l. Table D.II.l: SelectedNorth Dakota Water QualityStandards. SourisRiver Red River Stream Classifications IA I Constituents Chlorides - mg/l 175 100 Hardness - mg/l - - Nitrates (as N03) - mg/l 4.0 4.0 Phosphates(as P) - mg/l 0.1 0.1 Sodium - percentof total cations as meq/l 60 50 Sulfate - mg/l - - TotalDissolved Solids - mg/l 1,000 500 11-11 Thedash inTables D.II.l throughD.II.6 indicates that there are no specifiedcriteria for that particular constituent. (c)Ninnesota Water QualityStandards Minnesota water quality standards utilize a multipleuse stream classification scheme toindicate the level of protectionnecessary for a water body. A number is used toindicate the designated use: (1) Domestic 14 Consumption; (2) Fisheries and Recreation; (3) Industrial Consumption; (4) Agriculture and Wildlife. The relative quality within a given class is indicated by an alphabetical letter, with letter"A" indicating the highest quality water within that classification I1D" and the lowest. Minnesota water quality standards require that the quality of the Red River be maintained suitable for use as a domestic water supply after proper treatment(lC), suitable for protection and propagationof fish species natural to the area(2C), suitable for general industrial purposes with only moderate treatment(3B), and suitable for livestock and wildlife use (4B) and irrigation (4A). A partial listing of the water quality criteria associated with these classifications is contained in D.II.2.Table ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Table D.II.2: Selected Minnesota Water Quality Standards. Red River Stream Classification -1c -2c -3B Constituent Chlorides - mg/l 250 Chlorides - meq/l - Hardness - mg/l - Nitrates (as N03) - mg/l 45 Phosphates (as P) - mg/l - Sodium - percent of total cations as meq/l - Sulfate - mg/l 250 Total Dissolved Solids- mg/l 500 11-11 The dash indicates that there are no specified standards for that particular constituent. (d) Manitoba Water Quality Objectives Manitoba's interim water quality objectives utilize a multiple stream classification scheme for designating the beneficial uses for which a stream will be protected.A number is used to indicate the designated use: 1 - Domestic Consumption, 2 - Fisheries and Recreation, 3- Industrial Consumption, 4A - Agriculture (Irrigation) and4B - Livestock and Wildlife. The letter following the number in classes1, 2 and 3 designates the relative quality within each class with letter"A" indicating the highest quality water within a specific classification and"D" the lowest. A partial listing of the water quality criteria associated with the classifications for the streams within Manitoba affectedGDU isby contained in Tables D.II.3 throughD.II.5. Table D.II.3: Selected Manitoba Water Quality Objectives: Souris River. Souris River Stream Classification -IC 3B -2c - -4A Constituent Chlorides - mg/l 250 Chlorides - meq/l - Hardness - mg/l - Nitrate - Nitrite (as N) - mg/l 10 Phosphates (as P) - mg/l - Sodium - percent of total cations as meq/l - - - 60 Sulfate - mg/l 250 - - - Total 3issolved Solids- mg/l 1 ,000 - 1,000 700 11-1l The dash indicates that there are no specified objectives for that particular constituent. 16 Table D.II.4: SelectedManitoba Water Quality Objectives: Assiniboine River. r From SourisRiver to From Portage La Prairie Portagerecovery Portage La Prairie to end of recovervzone zoneto Winnipeg Stream Classification -1B -3B -1B Constituent Chlorides250 - mg/l 100 150 - 150 - 250 Chlorides - meq/l ------ F hardness - mg/l - 250 - - Nitrate-Nitrite(as iV) - mg/l 10 - - 100 10 Phosphates(as P) - mg/l - - - - - Sodium - percent of total cations as meq/l - I 60 - 60 - - Sulfate250 - mg/l - - - - - 250 TotalDissolved Solids - mg/1 500 1,000 700 3,000 700 3,000 500 - 1,000 700 3,000 c 11-11 The dashindicates that there are nospecified objectives for thatparticular constituent. Table D.II.5: Selected Manitoba Water Quality Objectives: Red River. U.S. Border City of Winnipeg Winnipeg recovery zone to Winnipeg and its recovery zone to Lake WinniDez Stream Classification 1B 2B 3B 4A 4B 3B 4A liB 1c 3B 4A 4B - ” ” - ” - -” Constituent Chlorides - mg/l 250 200 100 100 250 100 150 - Hardness - mg/l - - 250 250 - 250 - - Nitrate-Nitrite (as 14) - mg/l 10 - 10 10 10 10 - 100 Phosphates (as P) - mg/l ------ Sodium - percent of total cations as meq/l - - - 60 - - 60 - - - 60 - Sulfate - mg/l 250 - 250 - - 250 - - 250 250 - - Total Dissolved Solids- mg/l 500 - 1,000 700 3,000 - 1,000 700 3,000 1 ,000 - 1,000 700 3,000 “-‘I The dash indicates that there are no specified objectivesfor that particular constituent. (e) International Red River Pollution Board Objectives The Red River Pollution Boardof the IJC has established water quality objectives for the Red River at the international border(23). A partial listing of those objectives is contained in D.II.6.Table Table D.II.6: Selected International Red River Pollution Board Objectives. Red River at International Boundary Stream Classification none Constituent Chlorides - mg/l 100 Hardness - mg/l - Nitrates (as N) - mg/l Phosphorous (as P) - mg/l Sodium - percent of total cations as meq/l - Sulfate - mg/l. 250 Total Uissolved Solids- mg/l 500 11-11 The dash indicates that there are no specified objectives for that particular constituent. (f) Comparative Analysis of Standards and Objectives In-thisAppendix, a chapter has been devoted to each specific water use. Detailed discussions of the importance of specific constituent limits contained in the water quality standards and the relevanceof any changes in constituent levels upon a beneficial use will be contained in the following chapters. 19 A comparison of water quality standards and objectives for Minnesota, Manitoba and North Dakota reveals a few dissimilarities in the numeric criteria for several constituents. For the Souris River there are minor differences between the limits in Manitoba's objectives and North Dakota's standards for chloride and total dissolved solids. However, these differences are within the range of values which might be expected for protection of the designated water uses. These differences in numeric criteria are more indicativeof differences in scientific judgement or level of protection provided to the beneficial use rather than any actual difference in the beneficial uses themselves. The difference in nitrate criteria between Manitoba and Minnesota(45 mg/l asN03) and North Dakota (4 mg/l as NO3) is the result of two separate approaches being to used establish nitrate limits. The Manitoba and Minnesota limits were established at the level necessary to prevent adverse health effects to domestic consumers. The much more restrictive North Dakota nitrate limites- was tablished to limit the amount of nitrogen available to aquatic plants. The purpose of limiting nutrients is to reduce domestic water supply taste and odor problems associated with high algal populations inraw the water supply. This limit also serves to provide a high level of protection from the adverse health effects associated with the consumptionof water high in nitrates. 20 111. MUNICIPAL WATER USE (a) Introduction Although the Souris, Assiniboine and Red basins under discussion in this report have a predominantly agricultural character, most of Manitoba's population and industrial activity in the basinsis also located here. Municipalities in this chapter are defined as communities of greater than 500 persons in 1975. This study focuses upon municipalities which derive their water supplies from surface sources that are likely to be affected by GDU. Four major municipalities dominate the study area: Fargo-Moorhead (1975 population: 90,472) and Grand Forks-East Grand Forks (60,598) in the U.S., and Winnipeg (571,000) and Portage La Prairie (13,760) in Canada. In addition, the study area contains11 municipalities in the U.S. and three in Canada, which have populations greater than1,000 persons. As well, eight U.S. and two Canadian municipalities have populations between 500 and 1,000 persons. As indicated in Table D.III.l, the total munic'ipal population in the study area is just under 789,000in 1975(77percent in Canada and 23 percent in the U.S.). In carrying out the study, the Winnipeg Census Pietropolitan Area was excluded from consideration,as Winnipeg's water supply is taken from Lake of the Woods and is transported100 some miles via pipeline to the city. GDU will have no effect upon this water supply system. Thus, for the purposes of this study, the total municipal population is 218,000 in 1975. Of these, about 174,000 are served from surface sources which could be affectedby GDU. Municipal water use consists of domestic uses (cooking, bathing, drinking, lawn irrigation,etc.), institutional and public uses (schools, public buildings, fire protection, etc.) and industrial uses (industries which derive all or part of their water requirements from the public water supply), as well asa certain, usually indeterminant, amount of leakage from the water supply system. (b) Methodology There are two major considerations in designing a methodology for assessing current and future municipal water use. The first consists of determining the current population in the river basins under considera- tion, and of projecting these populations to 1985 and2000. The second consideration is developing reliable water use statistics for each munici- pality. In the United States portion of the study area, of much the work of this chapter had already been done by the Souris- Red - Rainy River Basins (SRRRB) Commission. Thus, data for this chapter were adopted directly from the SRRRB report. In general, municipal population projections for the SRRRB report were developed by disaggregating national population projections 21 Table D.III.l: MunicipalPopulation and Sources of Municipal Water Supply, 1975,1985 and 2000. 197 5 1985 2000 1985 1975 U.S. Portionof Basin a. TotalMunicipal Population 184,752 215,424 261,712 b. MunicipalPopulation served from surface water 147,741 168,574 202,355 c.Municipal Population served from ground water 37,011 46,850 59,357 d. Percentageof Municipal Population servedfrom surface water 78 80 77 CanadianPortion of Basin N N a. TotalMunicipal Population 604,000 689,217 801,410 b.Municipal Population served from surface water 26,654 31,334 36,518 c.Municipal Population served from ground water 6,346 6,973 7,926 d. Percentageof Municipal Population servedfrom surface water 81 81 82 TotalBasin a. TotalMunicipal Population 788,752 904,641 1,063,122 b. MunicipalPopulation served from surface water 174,395 199,908 238,873 c. MunicipalPopulation served from ground water 43,357 53,823 67,283 9OTES: Municipalpopulation includes all settlementsgreater than 500 persons.For the Canadian figures,the population of the Winnipeg Census Metropolitan Area has beenincluded in line (a) aboveof the Canadian and Total Sections of the table, but excluded from lines b, c and d. Thishas been done to estimate thetotal municipal population for the Canadian portion of the study area, but at the same time toexclude Winnipeg from the analysis. The Winnipegpopulations for 1975,1985 and 2000 are 571,000,650,910 and 756,966 respectively. into river basin regions. The water use data for the municipalities were derived from the records of the North Dakota and Minnesota Departments of Health . For Canada, the current and projected populations in the basins under consideration were obtained from Statistics Canada. The1971 Census of Canada provided base data on municipal populations(68, 70), which were then updated to 1975 on the basisof past growth trends. Statistics Canada has published official population projections for the whole of Canada from 1972 through 2001 (75,78). In this publication there are four sets of projections based upon varying assumptions of fertility, international migration and interprovincial migration. Three sets of pro- jections, A,B, and D, were used in this report to represent high, medium, and low populations. These three sets of projections were available only for Manitoba as a whole and thusa method had to be derived for breaking the provincial data down to estimate future populations in the municipalities under consideration. This was done by tracing the past growthof the appropriate census division* from1951 in relation to the total provincial population. It was assumed that the trends would continue into the future, thereby allowing provincial population estimates 1985for and 2000 to be disaggregated to areas conforming generally to the study area. The exact methodology used in this task is outlined in Attachment D.III.8. While three sets of population estimates were made for the Canadian portion of the study area, only the medium projection was used to derive the water use discussed in this appendix. The additional material developed but not used is presented in Attachments D.III.9 through D.III.13. Water use data for the Canadian municipalities in the study area were derived from the National Inventoryof Municipal Water Supply and Waste Treatment (18), and from the records of the Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management. These sources provided both the total water withdrawals in the municipalities under discussion and a breakdown by user class: domestic, commercial, institutional and publicly-supplied industrial. The amount of water used ina municipality depends upon factors such as population size, water source, typesof economic activity carried on in the municipality and cost of water to the consumer, The accurate forecasting of future water usefor municipalities can be a complex under- taking, depending upon the number of variables taken into account in the forecasting exercise. Traditionally, forecasts of municipal water use have been made by observinga relationship, summarizedby a water use coefficient, between total water use and population size. This methodology ignores variables such as water pricing which could be important in promoting more efficient water use in the future, especially in water-short areas such as the study area. However, becauseof the limited amount of data and the time * Census divisions are thebasic areal units used in the publications of census data in Canada. 23 constraints of the project, the coefficients method has been used here, omitting from consideration many of the factors influencing municipal water use. The methodologies used in the United States and Canada to derive current and future populations andto develop water use data are basically similar. They both disaggregate national data into regional components and then into river basin estimates. The reporting basis in attachments is slightly different, for in Canada three estimatesof population and water use are given, whereas only one set of data is given for the United States. However, this difference in reporting has no material effect on the accuracy of the results, and the results for the two countries are comparable. The effects of GDU were assessed intwo ways. First, the data on water quality impacts of GDU, supplied by the water quality committee, were examined constituent by constituentto determine what effects if any would be felt by municipal users. This assessment was made qualitatively for the most part by comparing the post-GDU quality against the Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives (22). In cases where recommended limits were exceeded, an assessment was made of probable effects using technical and scientific references. Second, the impacts of GDU upon municipal treatment costs were examined. The cost analysis was based on two concepts: the cost of supplying municipal users with the same quality water as they now have and the costs of providing water of the best quality obtainable using existing water treatment plants. (c) Current Municipal Water Use Municipalities of the study area withdrew almost 19 million gallons per day (mgd) from surface sources (TableD.III.2) in 1975. Five of the seven sub-basins in the study area withdraw water for municipal purposes, but the two U.S. sub-basins (A and C) account for 15.52 mgd or82 percent of the total daily municipal withdrawal. The exclusionof Winnipeg from the study accounts for the low proportion of Canadian withdrawal in relation to the U.S. Although data are incomplete, domestic uses appear to account for 67 percent of municipal withdrawals, commercial uses 11for percent, industrial uses for 9 percent and institutional and public uses8 percent, for leaving 5 percent of total withdrawals unaccounted for (Attachments D.III.2 through D.III.14). (d) Future Municipal Water Use In the U.S., municipal population is projected to increase by 16 percent between 1975 and 1985 and a by further 22 percent to a total muni- cipal population of 261,712 by 2000. In Canada, the municipal population in the study area is projected to 15grow percent between 1975 and 1985 by and a further 18 percent to a total municipal population of 901,410 2000.by In 24 TableD.III.2: Municipal Water Withdrawals, 1975,1985 and 2000. Sub-basins 1975 1985 2000 Withdrawalsin NGD** A. Red, Sheyenneand Wild Rice 24.24 20.77 15.46 Rivers (to Canada/U.S.border) B. Red River(Canada/U.S. border 2.00 1.75 1.58 to LakeWinnipeg)* C. SourisRiver (Wintering River 0.067 0.065 0.062 to Canada1U.S. border) N ul D. SourisRiver (Canada1U.S. border 0.14 0.14 0.13 to AssiniboineRiver) E. AssiniboineRiver (Souris River2.47 2.02 1.67 to Red River) Lak e Winnipeg (South Basin) (South Winnipeg F. Lake NIL NIL NIL Lak e Manitoba G. Lake NIL NIL NIL TOTALS,28.91 MGD 24.75 18.91 * includingSelkirk ** All gallonsthroughout the report are ImperialGallons. analyzing the population growth, a shift to the larger municipalities from the rural areas is apparent. Total municipal water withdrawals will rise24.75 to mgd in 1985, an increase of about 31 percent over 1975 (Table D.III.2). This percentage increase is accounted forby municipal population growth anda slight increase in the proportion of the population served by surface water sources. By 2000, the total water use will rise a further17 percent, again in line with increases in population. Municipal use in theU.S. will account for about 84 percent of the total use in1985 and 2000. As indicated in Table D.III.l, in both countries there will be a continuing high reliance on surface water for municipal supplies. (e) Water Quality Parameters of Importance for Municipal Use There are two general concerns in municipal water supplies: potability and palatability. In line with these concerns, recommended levels have been established for the many chemical constituents of public water supplies. In some instances natural levels of certain constituents in raw waters may make attainment of recommended levels difficult or impos- sible to achieve. For those constituents which affect human health, the inability to achieve recommended levels will result in the rejection of the source as a water supply. For other constituents, failure to achieve recommended levels will adversely affect palatability but will have no effect upon human health. In a third category are those substances for which elevated levels of the particular constituent may adversely affect individuals with certain health disorders or who are not acclimated to the water supply. Failure to achieve recommended levels may make the water undesirable but may not be grounds for rejection of the supply unlessa source with lower constituent levels can be made available. Three terms will be used relative to these recommended levels. Objective limits are defined as a long-term quality goal to be reached. Water supplies which meet these requirements are considered to be of very good and safe quality froma health and aesthetic standpoint. Acceptable limits are values which should benot exceeded whenever more suitable supplies are, or can be made, available within the technological and economic resources of the community. Substances present in concentrations above the indicated limits, are either objectionable to a significant number of people or capable of producing deleterious health effects. Maximum permissible limits are limits which, if exceeded, shall be sufficient grounds for the rejection of the water supply unless effective treatment can bring the offending substance below the permissable limit. These terms, as well as the limits associated with them, are con- tained in the Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives,1968 (22). These definitions apply to public, private or individual drinking water supplies and should not be confused with the definitions in ChapterI1 which apply to in-stream water quality. 26 There are many constituents which limit the use of water for domestic water supply. These discussions will be primarily confined to those con- stitutents which will change as a resultof GDU, concentrating on those sub- stances which will havea significant impact upon municipal use. These are hardness, nitrates, total dissolved solids(TDS), sodium, sulfates and taste and odor-causing substances. The potentially adverse effects of increasing each are given below. Hardness Hardness in water is the sumof the divalent cations expressed as an equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. The divalent cations which normally make up hardnessare calcium, magnesium, strontium, ferrous iron and manganese, the calcium and magnesium cations being the most common. The hardness of water varies considerably from place to place, reflecting the natureof the local geological formations. A common classifi- cation in terms of degree of hardness is shown (62).below 0- 75 mg/l Soft 75-150 mg/lModerately Hard 150-300 mg/lHard > 300 mg/lVery Hard Hardness in water is primarilyof economic concern. Hard waters require considerable amounts of soap to produce aor foamlather and can also produce scale in hot water pipes, boilers and other units in which the temp- erature of water is increased substantially. Waters whose hardness exceeds 500 mg/l as CaC03 may be unsuitable for domestic or industrial(22). uses Soft water can be corrosive depending upon the temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen (45). There are several methodsof reducing the hardnessof domestic water. In each instance the process selected reduces the hardness by re- moving or replacing a portion of the calcium and magnesium salts. The object is to reduce the hardness to a value consistent with the reduction of detergent consumption, the prevention of corrosion and the control of scale formation. The most common methods of softening by water utilities are the lime-soda process or the ion-exchange process. In the lime-soda process calcium and magnesium are precipitated out of solution by the additionof lime and soda ash. In the ion exchange process the hard water is passed through a cation-exchanger and the calcium and magnesium are replaced by sodium. The other method used is softening by the homeowner with ion-exchange units. From a consumer acceptability standpoint, hardness is usually reduced to the range of80 to 120 mg/l. There is some evidence, although inconclusive, that hard water tends to reduce the incidences of cardiovascular disease (40). Further 27 studies are necessary before any firm conclusion can be drawn concerning the health effects of consuming hard water, Nitrate Nitrate in drinking water has been associated with a serious and occasionally fatal blood disorder in infants known as methemoglobinemia. The disease, usually confined to infants less than three months old, is caused by the bacterial conversion of the nitrate ion to nitrite. Nitrite then converts hemoglobin, the blood pigment that carries oxygen from the lungs to the t.issues, to methemoglobin. Because the altered pigment can no longer transport oxygen, the physiologic effect of methemoglobinemia is that of oxygen deprivation, or suffocation. Infants are more susceptible to this disorder than adults for several reasons: the infant‘s total fluid intake per body weightis much higher than that of anadult; the higher pH of the infant‘s gastrointestinal tract is more conducive to the developmentof nitrate-reducing bacteria; the predominat-e form of hemoglobin at birthis more susceptible to methemo- globin formation than adult hemoglobin; and finally, the enzyme responsible for normal methemoglobin reduction is less active in an (88).infant Based upon the adverse physiological effect on infants and the fact that normal water treatment processes do not remove nitrates,U.S. the Public Health Service (86), National Academy of Sciences(45), and the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare (22) have recommended that nitrates in water supplies not exceed10 mg/l as N. These same limits are reflected in the U.S. Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations(84). Failure to comply with these regulationson the part ofU.S. water suppliers can result in enforcement action by Federal or State regulatory agencies. There are apparently a number of variables, such as hereditary defects, feeding of nitrogen-rich vegetables or use of common medicines which will increase an infant’s susceptability to methemoglobinemia. These variables, as wellas the fact that water samples are sometimes collected weeks after the disease occurs, have hampered efforts to establish a no-effect level with confidence. However, Winton and his associates concluded(88), after a reviewof available information, that “thereis insufficient evidence to permit raising the recommended 1.imit”. The Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee (21) expressed a similar opinion. Ingestion of nitrite directly would have a more immediate and direct effect. On this basis, it has been recommended(45) that the nitrite - nitrogen concentration in public water supply sources not 1exceed mg/l. Fortunately, natural waters rarely contain nitrite- nitrogen in amounts in excess of these limits. Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives,1968, contain the following recommended limits for nitrate- nitrite (22): 28 Maximum Permissible ObjectiveAceptable Limit Limit Nitrate + Nitrite as N 10.0 mg/l 10.0 mg/l 10.0 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Excessive dissolved solids are objectionable in drinking water because of possible physiological effects, unpalatable mineral tastes and higher costs because of corrosionor the necessity for additional treatment(45). Drinking water containing a high concentration of TDS is likely to contain an excessive concentrationof some specific substance which would be aesthetically objectionable to the consumer. Further, the possibility that drinking water containing high levelsof TDS may also contain elevated levels of potentially toxic substances is increased(45). The 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards included a limitfor TDS of 500 mg/l if other less mineralized sources were available (86). Although waters of higher concentrations are not generally aesthetically acceptable, it is recognized that many water supplies with TDS in excess 500 of mg/l are being used without any apparent adverse physiological effects(45). The Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives,1968, contain a recommended objective of less than500 mg/l of total dissolved solids with an acceptable limitof 1000 mg/l (22). The significance of the acceptable limits is that a substance present in concentrations in ofexcess these limits is objectionable to a significant numberof people or capable of producing deleterious health or other effects. These limits should not be exceeded whenever more suitable supplies can be made available. A limitation for TDS was not included in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Interim Primary Standards for Drinking Water, due primarily to the non-specificity of TDS analysis. Rather than try to limit TDS in general, specific limits were established for the individual substances of aesthetic and health importance in drinking water such as chloride, sulfate and sodium(45, 86). The Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives,1968, contain the following recommended limits for TDS (22): Maximum Permissible Objective Limit Acceptable Limit Limit Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/l specified1,000none mg/l 29 Sodium Thesodium content of drinking water is ofconcern primarily from a healtheffects standpoint, although some tasteproblems are associated withelevated levels of sodium. For a healthyindividual, sodium intake is governedmainly by theseasoning and types of foods consumed.However, restricted sodium diets are recommendedby physiciansfor a substantial portionof the population suffering from such physical disorders as congestive cardiacfailure, hypertension, and women withtoxemias of pregnancy (46). Even thoughthe sodium concentration in drinking water is ofconcern from a healthstandpoint, no limit ofacceptability is usuallyprescribed for sodium in raw water. The cost of removingsodium from raw water is excessive and theconcentrations found in most raw watersare generally lower than the limits recommended forthose onmoderately restricted sodium diets. Persons on restricted sodium diets may havetheir total sodium intake restricted to 500 to 1,000 mg/day.Assuming a waterintake of 2 liters perday and assumingan average sodium intake from food sources, it hasbeen calculated thatfor very restricted sodium diets, 20 mg/lof sodium in drinking water wouldbe maximum. Forpersons on moderately restricted sodium diets, 270 mg/l is the maximum recommended concentration (45). Most sodiumcompounds’are extremely soluble in water andsodium salts are foundthroughout the water environment.In addition to natural sources of sodium salts, sodiumcompounds are introducedinto drinking water by a number of water treatmentmethods. The useof sodium compounds for corrosioncontrol could cause an increase, and water softening by either thebase-exchange or lime-sodaash methods will significantly increase the sodiumconcentration of drinking water. Foreach milligram per litre of hardnessremoved as calciumcarbonate by theexchange process, the sodium content will be increased by 0.5 mg/l.The Canadian Drinking Water Standards andObjectives, 1968, containno recommended limits forsodium (22). Sulfates t The sulfate ion is ofconcern in drinking water supplies because of taste andlaxative effects. Conventional treatment processes do not remove sulfate. The 1962 Drinking Water Standards of theUnited States PublicHealth Service recommended that sulfates do notexceed 250mg/l where sourceswith lower sulfate concentration are or canbe made available (86). A similar recommendation was made by theNational Academy of Sciences Committeeon Water QualityCriteria (45). Levelsof sulfate in excess of this limit cancause taste problemsand can have a cathartic effect upon occasionalusers; however, acclimatization to sulfate at this level is rapid. The CanadianDrinking Water Standardsand Objectives recommend thatdomestic water suppliesnot exceed 250 mg/l of sulfate and that the acceptable level of sulfate is 500 mg/l(22). The significance of the accept- able level is that a substance, when presentin concentrations above the indicated limit, is eitherobjectionable to a significant number of people orcapable of producingdeleterious health or other effects. 30 Data collected by the North Dakota State Department of Health on laxative effects of wateras related to mineral quality indicated that more than 750 mg/l sulfate had a laxative effect, and less 600 than mg/l did not (54). If the water was high in magnesium the laxative effectwas shown at a lower sulfate concentration. The laxative effects were experienced by persons not accustomed to the water when magnesiumwas about 200 mg/l and by acclimated individuals when magnesium was500 - 1000 mg/l. When sulfates plus magnesium exceeded1000 mg/l, a majority of those queried indicated a laxative effect (44). Sodium sulfate (Glauber salt, Na2S04.10H20) and magnesium sulfate (Epsomsalt, MgS04.7H20) are common laxatives. The laxative dose for both salts is about two grams. Two liters of water with about300 mg/l of sulfate derived from Glauber salt,390 or mg/l derived from Epsom salt would provide this dose. The Canadian Drinking Water Standards and Objectives,1968, contain the following recommended limits for sulfate(22): Maximum Permissible Ob j ec t ive Acceptable Limit Limit Sulfate as so4 250 mg/l 500 specifiednonemg/l Taste and Odor Taste and odor, more than any other factor, determine public acceptance of a water supply. Although taste and odor cannot be directly correlated with the safety of a water supply, abjectionable taste and odor may force people to utilize other water resources whichnot may be as reliable from a health standpoint(63). Also, taste and odor problems may suggest to the consumer that toxic chemicals may be present. Taste problems are usually associated with large amounts of certain inorganic substances such as sulfate or iron, while the mainof sourceodor causing compounds is organic material. These compounds can cause serious earthy or musty odors when present in even minute quantities. Although the sources of tastes and odors mayquite be different, the human senses of taste and smell are not generally separable. Therefore, most odor prob- lems manifest themselves to the water consumer as a taste problem. Attempts to specifically characterize taste and odor problems have met with limited success because of the complex natureof the human taste and odor sensation. Although taste and odor problems can originate from many sources, including industrial wastes and domestic sewage, biological materials are the most common cause of tastes and odors in water. The recovery and identification of these compounds from water has been very difficult because they can cause persistent problems when present in trace amounts, are quite numerous in the environment, and exhibit wide variations in structural com- plexity. 31 Algae are mostfrequently associated with taste andodor problems in water treatmentplants (63). A common sourceof algal-caused odors are certainmetabolic compounds formed by themicroorganisms and released upon theirdeath or disintegration (29). However, odorous compounds havebeen produced by activelygrowing organisms as well (3). Actinomycetes,mycelial bacteria, have been identified as another biologicalsource of intense, earthy odors in water supplies (59). These organisms are widelydistributed in the environment and comprise a large part of themicrobial populations of soils andlake and river sediments. Odorscan also be formed in the water treatmentprocess itself. The incompleteoxidation of phenols by chlorine can produce chlorophenolic compounds that are extremelyodorous when presentin only minute quantities. Phenolsin natural waters can come from a varietyof sources including industrialand municipal wastes, as well as naturalsources (45). Two generalapproaches are usuallyconsidered in the treatment of odorproblems: destruction of odor and removal of odor. The destruction ofodor-producing compounds is usuallyaccomplished with strong oxidizing agentssuch as chlorine,chlorine dioxide, ozone or potassium permanganate. Treatmentprocesses which remove odor are aeration,coagulation and flocculation,sedimentation and filtration. These are common water treat- ment processesand are seldomused for the sole purpose of odor control. The adsorpti-onof the odorous substance is oneof the most common odor removalprocesses. A number ofsubstances exhibit odor adsorbing character- istics butactivated carbon has the best capability for consistently producing palatable water at a reasonablecost. (f) Effects of Existing Water Quality andQuantity on Current and Future Municipal Water Use To assess the effects of water qualityand quantity on municipal water use is a difficult task, as very little data exist that relate directlyto the problem. Section (e) related the effects of increasing certain water qualityparameters beyond acceptable limits, but that by itself does notdetermine what damages are beingincurred in the study area as a result of current water quality.Intuitively, it wouldappear that water shortages havelimited development opportunities in the area, butthe analysis requiredto "prove" this point is verycomplex, and probably inconclusive. The bestthat can be done here is toprovide some descriptive material relating theeffects of quality and quantity on current municipal uses, providing at least anappreciation of the fact that the area is onewhere water is often inshort supply and where water quality is oftenpoor for municipal use. (i) Water TreatmentCosts: The selectionof a municipal water supplysource is basedupon an analysis of the quantity and quality of water available at differentpotential sites. The variousquantity and quality considerations are reflected by thecosts of developing,operating and 32 maintaining the source of supply. Other things, such as long-term adequacy, remaining constant, the choice between developing a groundwater or a surface water source is oneof cost minimization. Development, or capital, costsof a water supply system include the cost of structures, pipes, pumps and water treatment equipment. Operating and maintenance (0 & M) costs include the cost of chemicals used in treating raw water, labour costs, power costs, etc. The supply alternative offering the lowest streamof development and 0 & M costs is normally the one selected, other things being equal. One objective measure of the effects of poor water quality is the cost of treating water supplies prior to use.The amount of treatment required, and thus the cost of treatment, is related directly to the ambient water quality. The costs shown in TableD.III.3 represent chemical costs and total treatment costs incurred at the Canadian municipal treatment plants. These data include costs for disinfection, coagulation, softening, and taste and odor control and relateto 1974 and, where available,1975 calendar years. Table D.III.3 shows that current water treatment costs totalled some $284,000 for those communities in Canada using surface water supplies. The costs of treatment per thousand gallons vary widely among municipalities. Economies of scale, which would tendto reduce costs as totalpurnpage in- creases, are one possible explanation for this variance. Another explanation is that cost accounting in the water treatment field is relatively new in Canada, with the result that few standards for accounting exist. Thus, methods used to calculate treatment costs may vary among municipalities. Also, difference in treatment methods used will account for some of the var- iance in treatment costs. Nevertheless, since the data presented in Table D.III.3 are the only ones available, they have been used to indicate a rough "order of magnitude'' of treatment costs. (ii) Uses Foregone: A second possible way of demonstrating the effects of present water quality on current uses is to explore the con- cept of "uses foregote". In this Appendix, uses foregone means historic uses which have been discontinued because of quantity or quality considera- tions or uses which would have been possible had there been adequate supplies of better quality water available in the area.It is extremely difficult to find examples of uses foregone, because, inevitably, factors other than the quantity or qualityof the water resource enter the decision to forego any given municipal water use. However, there are a few examples which can be cited as being fairly close to the definition given above of uses foregone. Historically, the water resources of the prairies, in general, and southern Manitoba, in particular, have always been of concern from the municipal water supply point of view. Always, there has been the question of supply adequacy, particularly during the summer months. Often, however, these quantitative problems have been compounded by poor water quality. The water has generally been hard, even after treatment requiring costly soaps and washing compounds. Dissolved solids have also caused damageto 33 ~- Table D.III.3: Treatment Costs for Municipal Supplies (1975). AnnualWater Population Annual Chemical Cost ($) AnnualTreatment Costs ($) MunicipalUse (MIG) ServedTotal Cost Cost/1000 gals. TotalCost Cost/1000 gals. 21 .9 650 6,600 .30 16,400 .30 6,600 Emerson650 21.9 .75 41 .3 1,400 12,500 .30 29,000 .70 29,000 .30 12,500 Morris1,400 41.3 Jean BaptisteSt. 2,900 Jean 292 7.5 38 1.49 11,200 Selkirk (Ground- wa ter supply)water 129,200 9,800 506.2 .25 " " w .P Souris 50.4 1,500 16,mo .33 .68 34,500 Portage La Prairie13,760 608.1 71,900 .12 192,600 .32 boilers. Surface waters tend to be silty, causing abrasive damage to pumps and siltation for water supply pipes. When the Red and Assiniboine rivers were used in Winnipeg's water supply, it was often found that after fires, damages done by the silt, sand and mud of the public water supply used to extinguish the fire were as great as the fire damages themselves(49). Although documented cases are few, there is little doubt that water quality has been a factor in forcing the study area's municipalities to obtain their water supplies from groundwater sources or from outside the area via importation. In the case of Winnipeg, it proved economically less costly to build a pipeline from Shoal Lake on Lake Woods, of the a distance of some100 miles, than to further develop local water supplies. Future water requirements for Winnipeg will continue to be met from this source plus a proposed source on the Winnipeg River. Another example of a municipal use impaired, although not foregone, because of poor water quality lies in the water supply situation at Portage la Prairie.* As noted in a previous section, the municipality relies upon the Assiniboine River for its water supplies. The nature of the Souris River, which enters the Assiniboine upstream of Portage la Prairie, is such that algal blooms often occur during periodsof low flow in the summer months. Impoundments along the Souris River in North Dakota designed to enhance waterfowl habitat tend to enhance conditions for the occurrence of bloomsalgal by slowing the water movement and reducing the turbidity. These algal blooms become significant to downstream water users when they die, and produce a host of soluble decomposition products. These decomposition products by them- selves contribute to taste and odor problems, but these problems are inten- sified by chlorination at the Portage la Prairie water treatment plant. The sometimes serious taste and odor problems here are thought to be caused by the chlorinationof phenolic decomposition products which originate in the algal blooms. In general, with regard to municipal water supplies, the influences of quality and quantity upon the decision to develop or abandon a given source are largely undocumented. From knowledge of the qualityof surface waters, it can be inferred that water quality does force the adoption of alternate supply sources, and, in the ofcase those municipalities connected to surface sources, does raise the cost of water treatment over and above chlorination. (g) Effects of GDU on Current and Future Use (i) Descriptive Analysis: This descriptive analysis of the effects of GDU on municipal water compares post-GDU water quality developed by the Water Quality Committee(24), against the Canadian * This section is based upon personal communication withMr. E. Allison, Water Quality Analyst, Prairie Provinces Water Board. 35 Drinking Water Standards and Objectives(22), the Manitoba Water Quality Objectives and historic water quality. Increases in the concentrations of the chemical constituents considered in this section will be reflected in the quality of the treated water. Of the substances considered, the existing treatment plants are designed to remove only those contribu- ting to hardness. In those instances where there were significant increases over historic levels or recommended limits were violated, an assessment of the probable effect was made using technical and scientific references as guides. This assessment provides the necessary background for the analysisof GDU impacts on water supply costs, which follows this section. 1. Red River (from international boundary to Assiniboine River) This segment of the Red River is utilized as a source of muni- cipal water by the Manitoba communities of Emerson, Morris and St. Jean. A summary of the water quality changes for those constituents of importance to municipal users areshown in Table D.III.4. Increases have been pre- dicted for all the constituents listed. However, the increased concentra- tions of these substances, with the exception of hardness, are well below the recommended levels. The effects of GDU on these three Red River communities,as summarized in Table D.III.5, will generally be confined to increased water softening costs and a possible increase in taste and odor causing substances. Current, as well as projected, water demands for these communities can be met with existing supplies. Therefore, flow increases in this segmentof the Red Riverresulting fromGDU are not considered beneficial to municipal users. 2. Red River (from Assiniboine River to Lake Winnipeg) Selkirk is the only community which uses this segment of the Red River as a municipal water supply, The changes in the water quality constituents of most concern to municipal use are shown in Table D.III.6. Increases in TDS, sodium, nitrate, sulfate and hardness of3 to from 20 percent have been predicted. Except for hardness and TDS, post-GDU concentrations of these substances will be below objective levels. With the current treatment plant, pre-project hardness levels in the treated water can be maintained, but treatment costs will be increased. The objective le.vel for TDS(500 mg/l) will be exceeded more frequently during the post-GDU period, but it is anticipated that this increase will have no significant effect upon municipal use (TableD.III.7). If nutrient increases stimulate increases in algal populations, more fre- quent taste and odor problems may occur. Current, as well as projected water demands can by be met existing supplies. Therefore, no benefit from increased flows resulting from GDU are projected. 36 ~f Later Quality Data - Ked River (from International Boundaryto Assiniboine River). "" ______" _" WORST MONTH** ___" it\iKUhL AVERAGE ESTIMATE MEDIAY/BEST HIGH ACCtPlABLt MtUYlTOBA HISTORIC PEAX IIHPACT EQUILIBRIUE! EISTORIC PEA! PIPACT EQVILIBRIL?:hISTORIC PEAK lMPACT EQL'ILIBRIUM LEVEL WATER PERIOD PERIOD PERIODPERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD QtiALITY OBJECTIVES* ______- " Total Dissolved 5vO 1000 500 360 388 377 404 671L37 763420 901 Solids, mg/l Calcium, mg/l 75 200 -- 62 66 64 72 70 75 85 111 97 Sodium, mg/l " " " 30 32 32 37 18239 39 175 177 W 4 Magnesium, mg/l 50 150 " 27 5029 28 60 30 44 33 32 Chloride, mg/l 250 250 35 250 31 45 45 31 45 188 209 188 Nitrate-Kitrite*** 10 10 2.59 10 2.59 0.432.50 0.461.43 0.461.43 1.42 mg/l (2.82) (0.69) (2.82) (0.69) (1.44) (1.44) Sulfate,mg/l 250 500 250152 80 167 96 138 88 113111 115 Phosphorous, mg/l __ " "0.19 0.19 0.190.76 0.310.16 0.310.73 0.31 Hardness, mg/l 446120 500523 285 " 382 268 310 324276 305 * Stream Classification1 B - Domestic Consumption. ** Based upon highest best estimate value. *** Two projections shown. Source: (24) Table D.III.5: Effect of GDU on Municipal Use- Emerson, Morris and St. Jean Baptiste. The principal effects of GDU upon municipal water for Emerson, Morris and St. Jean Baptiste are summarized as follows: ConstituentImpactPeriodEquilibriumPeak period Total The annual increase of8 The annual increase of5 Dissolved Solids percent over pre-project percent over pre-proj ect conditions will have no conditions will have no significant effect upon significant effect upon municipal use. municipal use. Sodium The annual increase of7 percent will have no signi- ficant effect upon municipal use. Chloride There will be no significant change in chloride concen- trations. Nitrate-Nitrite The increase in nitrate-nitrite levels in either projection will have no significant effect upon municipal use. Sulfate An annual increase of20 An annual increase of10 percent is predicted. percent is predicted. The increased sulfate levels will be well below the water quality objective levels and will have no effect upon municipal use. Phosphorous The phosphorous levels are predicted to remain unchanged. Hardness The annual hardness level The annual hardness level of the raw water will of the raw water will increase 6 percent. increase 3 percent. The increase in hardness will result in a proportional increase in softening costs. Taste and Odor A slight increase in taste and odor causing substances may occur if nitrate increases stimulate increases in algal populations. 38 WORST MOh'TH** AVE RAGE MEDIANIBEST ESTIMATE MEDIANIBEST ANNUAL AVERAGE HIGH COXSTITUEST OBJbCTIVEACCFPTABLE MANITOBA HISTORIC PEAK IMPACT EQUILIBRIUM HISTORIC PEAK IEPACTEQLILIBRILW HISTORIC PEAK IMPACT EQL'ILIBRIUM WAT ER PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIODLtVELPERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD LE'I'ELPERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES* 4 46 436 523 571 553 684 a57 Total 684Uissoived 553500 5711000 5231000 408436 446 783 Solids, mg/l 63 68 66 78 04 81 91 112 91 81 mg/l04 Calcium, 200 78 75 66 68 " 63 101 46 48 49 72 74 75 126 129 132 129 126 75 74 Sodium, mg/l72 " 49 " 48 " 46 32 40 43 42 52 65 58 65 52 42 43 31 40 34 32 250 250 250 36 35 35 54 53 52 72 66 66 66 72 52 53 54 35 35 36 250 Chloride, 250 mg/l 250 0 .44 0.48 0.49 1.24 1.25 1.25 2.70 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.70 1.25Nitrate-Nitrite*** 1.25 101.24 100.49 IO0.48 0.44 (0.8 4) (0.85) (1.26) (1.26) (2.94) (2.94) (2.94) (1.26) (1.26)mgll (0.85) (0.84) 2 50 103 128 120 123 156 148 156 123 Sulfate, 120 mg/l 128250 103500 250 182160 282 0 .27 0.27 0.28 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.67 Phosphorous, 0.49 mg/l0.49 -- 0.50 " 0.28 "0.27 0.27 289 307 299 347 388 374 402 546 490 546 402 374 Hardness,388 500 mg/l 347 120 299 307" 289 * Stream Classification 1 C - Domestic Consumption. ** Based upon highest median and best estimatevalues. *** Two projections shown. Source: (24) Table D.III.7: Effect of GDU on Municipal Use - Selkirk The principle effectsof GDU upon municipal water for Selkirk are summarized below. Constituent Peak Impact Period EquilibriumPeriodConstituentImpactPeriod Peak Total Dissolved The annual increase of9 The annual increase of Solids percent over pre-project 7 percent over pre- conditions will have no project conditions will significant effect upon have no significant effect municipal use. upon municipal use. Sodium The annual increase of4 The annual increase of percent will haveno 7 percent will have no significant effect upon significant effect upon municipal use. municipal use. Chloride The slight reduction in chloride concentrations will have no significant effect upon municipal use. Nitrate-Nitrite Annual increases in nitrate in either projection will have no significant effect upon municipal use. Sulfate An annual increase of24 An annualincrease of 16 percent is predicted. percent is predicted. The increased sulfate levels will be well below the water quality objective levels and will have no effect upon municipal use. Phosphorous The slight increase in phos- phorous levels will haveno effect upon municipal use. Hardness The cost of softening to The cost of softeningto pre-project levels will pre-project levels will increase in proportion increase in proportion to the 6 percent annual to the 3 percent annual increase in hardness. increase in hardness. Taste and Odor A slight increase in taste and odor causing substances may occur if nutrient (nitrate and phosphorous) increases stimulate increased algal growth. 40 3. Souris River (from international boundaryto Assiniboine River) The effect of GDU upon municipal water will be the most severe for the community of Souris.As shown in Table D.III.8, projected concentrations for TDS, nitrate-nitrite (high projections), sulfate and hardness will approach or exceed acceptable levels. The two nitrate projections shown in the table represent different assumptions by the Water Quality Committee(24) regarding the fate of nitrates which enter the streams in the study area. Nitrate-nitrite concentra- tions in the low projections, although substantially above pre-project levels, will not exceed the maximum permissable limit (10 mg/l) established by the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare (22). As discussed in Table D.III.9, the high-projectionof nitrate- nitrite levels will frequently exceed the maximum permissable limit causing serious concern for the health of infants. Adverse health and aesthetic effects are also associated with post-project projections for sodium and sulfate. Hardness can be removed by the existing treatment plant. Therefore, pre-project levels in the treated water can be main- tained, but treatment cost will increase. Increased nutrient levels in the river may also cause large increases in algal populations(26). If this occurs, serious taste and odor problems in the drinking water could result. Current, as well as projected, water demands can be met with existing supplies (low headdarns provide storage during low flow periods). Therefore, no benefits have been projected for flow increases resulting from GDU. The possible effect of changes in Souris River water quality on the groundwater supply for the community of Melita was investigated (116). It was concluded that under current operating conditions, the groundwater supply would not be significantly affected by GDU. However, large increases in the quantityof water withdrawn would cause infiltra- tion of river water in the aquifer.If this should occur, some deterior- ation of the quality of the municipal water would be expected. 4. Assiniboine River (from Souris River to Red River) As a result of GDU, concentrations in the Assiniboine River, will increase for all constituents shown in Table D.III.10 except chloride. Nitrate-nitrite high estimate concentrations will exceed the maximum permissable limit in three months of the year, according to the high projection data. In the post-GDU period, sulfate concen- trations will exceed the objective levels for five to six months each year. The effects of these increases on municipal water for Portage la Prairie are discussed in Table D.III.ll. The aesthetic qualities of the municipal water will be reduceda resultas of increases in 41 WORST MONTH** ANNUAL AVERAGE ESTIMATE MEDIANIBEST HIGH COKSTITCEXT UbJtLiiVE ACCEPTABLE i.iii;iTOBA IIISTCRIC PFM. IFFACT EQI_.ILIBFILF! HISTORIC PEAK IMPACTEQUILIBRILW HISTORIC PEAK IMPACT EQUILIBRIUM LEVEL WATER PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIODPERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIODLEVEL PERIOD PERIOD WATER LEVEL PERIOD QUALITY OBJECTIVES* Total Dissolved 500Dissolved Total 1000 10001136 7211398 1754 1652 1218988 1450 1560 Solids, mg/l Calcium, mg/l 75 200101 ”122 65 161 149 136 196 221 128 132 124 145 246 159 180 4 94 162 191 162 94 4 Sodium, 180 mg/l 159 ” 246 -_ 145 ”124 132 c N Magnesium, mg/l 50 150 ” 45 69 58 98 89 71 128 109 85 2 50 250 250Chloride, 250 mg/l 250 38 3075 2936 2837 65 37 Nitrate-Nitrite***3.03 3.79 10 0.5910 1.18 10 1.20 0.23 0.728.85 9.17 (7.09) (6.97) (12.47) (12.05) (26.89) (26.17) (26.89) (12.05) mg/ 1 (12.47) (6.97) (7.09) Sulfate, mg/l219 250250 582 500 764 465 457 568 483 938 694 Phosphorous,1.50 mg/l1.42 --0.81 0.62” 0.54“ 0.36 0.32 2.52 3.36 Hardne ss, mg/lHardness, 120 500 ” 34 6 591 491 767 756 610 861719 931 * Stream Classification 1 C - Domestic Consumption. ** Based upon highest best estimate value. *** Two projections shown. Source: (24). Table D.III.9: Effect of GDU on Municipal Use- Souris The principle effects of GDU upon municipal water for Souris are summarized as follows: PeakImpact Period Equilibrium Period Total Dissolved The best estimate concentra- The best estimate concen- Solids tions will exceed the drinkingtrations will exceed the water objectives12 months drinking water objectives of the year as compared to 12 months of the year as 8 months of the year cur- compared to 8 months of the rently. An annual increase year currently. An annual of 58 percent over historic increase of 37 percent over conditions is predicted. historic conditions is pre- dicted. The health and aesthetic effects of increases in total dissolved solids depend upon which of the dissolved constituents are increased. These effects will be addressed in the following discussions. Sodium The normal population will The normal population will not be affected by the6 not be affected by the10 percent decrease in sodium percent increase in sodium levels. This decrease will levels. Consumers with con- be more than offset by in- ditions requiring low salt creases in sodium due to (sodium) intake will haveto the sodium exchange factor contend with added restrictions in the water softening as a result of increased process. sodium in the raw water as well as increases in sodium due to the sodium exchange factor in the softening process. The higher sodium also causes autoregeneration of the zeo- lite softening unit. This results in a slightloss of efficiency and a corresponding added cost to achieve the current level of hardness. 43 Table D.III.9 (Continued) PeakImpact Period Equilibrium Period ChlorideThere will be a 3 percentThere will be a 7 percent decreasein the annual decrease in the annual chloridelevel. This de- chloride level. This decrease crease will have no signi- will have no significant ficant effect upon municipal effect upon municipal use. use. Nitrate-Nitrite An annual increase in nitrate-An annual increase in nitrate- (Low Projection) nitrite concentration of 422 nitrite concentration of 413 percentispredicted. percent ispredicted. These increases will have no direct effect upon the population aas whole. However, the high nitrate concentrations during the months of March and April approach the maximum permissable limits. Nitrate levels in excess of these limits could have adverse health effectsOR some infants. Nitrate-Nitrite A 3000 percent annual increase in (High Projection) nitrate-nitrite concentration is predicted. The high estimates for the peak impact and equilibrium periods exceed the maximum permis- sible limit (10 mg/l) for every month of the year. Best-estimate projections exceed the maximum per- missible limit for five months out of the year during the peak impact period and three monthsof the year during the equilibrium period. Nitrate-nitrite concentrations in excess of the maximum permissible limit can cause a serious, even fatal, blood disorderin infants (methemoglobinemia). Sulfate The best estimate concentra- The best estimate concentra- tions will exceed the Mani- tions will exceed the Manitoba toba Water Quality ObjectivesWater Quality Objectives10 11 months of the year comparedmonths of the year compared to 3 months currently. The to 3 months currently. The annual increase over historicannual increase over historic 44 TableD.III.9 (Continued) P eak ImpactPeakPeriodEquilibrium Period conditions will be159 percent. conditions will be109 percent. The increaseover the objective The increaseover the objective level will be127 percent. level will be 83 percent. The additional sulfates will aggravate thetrend toward an unacceptable taste andlaxative effect. More consumers will experienceadverse physiological effectsbecause of the increased sulfate concentrations. Phosphorous The annualphosphorous level Theannual phosphorous level will increase12 percent over will increase68 percent pre-projectconditions. During overpre-project conditions. theice-free period (May - Oct.) Duringthe ice-free period the increase will be 40 percent. (May - October)the increase will be126 percent. The increasein phosphorous will have no direct effect upon municipal water use. However, theincreased nutrients (nitrogenand phosphorous) could sub- stantiallyincrease biomass in the river. Increased biomass will adversely affect the water treatment processesof coagulation, filtration, and taste andodor removal. Hardness The annualhardness level The annualhardness level will beincreased 71 percent will beincreased 42 percent overcurrent levels. overcurrent levels. Sourisnormally softens the Sourisnormally softens the river water to100 mg/l for river water to100 mg/l for consumer satisfaction. To consumer satisfaction. To maintainthis hardness level maintainthis hardness level duringthe peak impact period duringthe equilibrium period will result in additional will result in additional treatmentcosts. treatmentcosts. The present method of water softening at Sourisresults in an equivalent increase(stoichiometrically) in sodium,which in this case may reach undesirable levels. 45 Table D.III.9 (Continued) PeakImpact Period Equilibrium Period Taste and Odor Increasedconcentrations of nutrients inthe river could stimulate a substantial increasein biomass. If thisincrease occurs,serious taste andodor problems will result. 46 Table D.III.iO: Sunnary of Water Quality Udta - Assinibuine River (from Souris River to the Red River). "- Total Dissolved 500 1000 500 528 6 34 612 782 626 960 7 37 1091 791 Solids, mg/l Calcium, mg/l 75 200 " 82 91 87 107 116136 110144 129 Sodium, mg/l " " 65 " 56 12270 12766 10278 85 f Magnesium, mg/l 50 150 42 " 36 40 50 45 52 51 74 65 25 0 250 250 25 25 25 25 25 250 Chloride, 250 mg/l 250 61 3131 31 52 50 Nitrate-Nitrite*** 10 10 100.53 3.630.38 1.20 1.16 0.53 1.16 0.82 3.59 mg/ 1 (2 (1.70) (1.66) (10.65) .as) (2.87) (10.51) Sul fate , mg/l243Sulfate, 172 250250 500 269 226300 197 463302 495 Phosphorous, mg/l -- " " 0.21 0.10 0.18 0.14 1.28 0.68 0.230.30 0.29 Har dnes s, mg/lHardness, 453120 383500 399" 356 664 507540 477 582 * Stream Classification 1 B - Domestic Consumption. ** Based upon highest best estimate value. *** Two projections shown. Source: (24) Table D.III.11: Effect of GDU on Municipal Use- Portage la Prairie. The principal effects GDUof upon municipal water for Portage La Prairie are summarized as follows: Constituent Peak Impact Period EquilibriumPeriodConstituentImpact Period Peak Total Dissolved The best estimate concentrations Solids will exceed the drinking water objectives at the current rate of 10 months per year. The annual average concen- The annual average concen- tration will increase 20 trationwill increase 16 percent over historicpercent historicover values. values. The health and aesthetic effects of increases in total dissolved solids depend upon whichof the dissolved constituents are increased. These effects willbe addressed in the following discussions. Sodium The normal population will The normal population will not be affected by the not be affected by the annual average increaseof annual average increaseof 16 percent. 25 percent. Consumers with health conditions necessitating low salt (sodium) intake willbe required to further restrict their diet. Chloride There will be no significant change from pre-project conditions. Nitrate-Nitrite The annual average increase in (Low projection) nitrate-nitrite of 39 percent over pre-project conditions will have no direct effect on muni- cipal water users. 48 Table D.III.ll (Continued) Constituent Peak Impact Period EquilibriumPeriodPeriodImpact Constituent Peak Nitrate-Nitrite The annual increase in concen- (High project ion) tration will be over300 percent. High estimates are projected to exceed the maximum permissible limit (10 mg/l) in three months of the year for both the peak impact period and equilibrium period. As a result of GDU, nitrate-nitrite concentrations have reached the level where, during certain times of the year they could pass a health threat to infants susceptable to methemoglobinemia. Sulfate The best estimate concentra- The best estimate concentra- tions will exceed the Manitobations will exceed the Manitoba Water Quality Objectives6 Water Quality Objectives5 months of the year. The months of the year. The historic monthly median historic monthly median values do not show any vio-values do not show any vio- lation of the Objectives.An lations of the Objectives. An annual increase of40 percent annual increase of31 percent is predicted. is predicted. Since normal water treatment processes do not remove sulfates, these increases are significant because the drinking waterob- jectives for sulfate will be exceeded for a substantial part of each year. Although these increases in sulfates are un- desirable, it is difficult to predict whether objectionable tastes will be noticeable at these sulfate levels. Because acclimatization to sulfate is rapid at these levels, undesirable laxative effects should not occur. PhosphorousThe annual average phosphor- The annual average phosphorous ous level will increase 40 level will increase 80 percent percentover pre-project over pre-project levels. levels. 49 Table D.III.11 (Continued) Constituent Peak Impact Period EquilibriumPeriodConstituentImpactPeriod Peak Phosphorous (Continued) The increase in phosphorous will have no direct effect upon municipal water use. However, the increased nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) will cause increases in biomass in the river. This increase will adversely effect the water treatment processes of coagulation, filtration, and taste and odor removal. Hardness The average annual hardness The average annual hardness content will be increased12 content will be increased8 percent over current levels. percent over current levels. Portage La Prairie normally softens the river water to about100 mg/l for consumer satisfaction. Maintenance of this hardness level will result in increased softening costs. Taste and Odor Increased concentrations of nutrients in the river could stimulate an increase in biomass, aggravating existing taste and odor problems. 50 sulfate and taste and odor causing substances. From a health standpoint, increases in sodium and nitrate-nitrite (high projection)of are concern. Consumers on low salt (sodium) diets will be further restricted because of sodium increases in their water supply. Nitrate-nitrite levels during certain times of the year represent a possible health threat to infants. Pre-project hardness levels in the treated waterbe canmaintained, but treatment costs could increase. Current, as well as projected, water demands can be met with existing supplies. Therefore, no water supply benefits have been attributed to increased flows resulting from GDU. (ii) Municipal treatment cost analysis: Many of the impacts of GDU on municipal water use be can defined quantitatively by examining the costs of providing municipal water supplies. The general concept on which this analysis is based is that water supply costs will increase as the quality of the water source deteriorates. To utilize this con- cept, two types of water supply costs were examined: the costs of providing the best quality of water obtainable using currently installed or planned equipment, and the cost of providing water supplies of at least current quality. The first type of cost, that is providing the best possible water supplies using currently installed or planned equipment, meets many of the standards for potable water set forth in the Canadian Drink- ing Water Standards (22). However, some of the water quality consti- tuents which will be increased as a resultof GDU, such as sodium, nitrates, phosphates, and sulfates, cannot he reduced using currently available or planned equipment. In some cases, these constituents would fall above the minimum acceptable levels specifiedby the Drinking Water Standards in the post-GDU period. Thus, the costs of obtaining the best possible water supplies with current or planned methods under- estimate the economic impacts of GDU on municipal water supplies. The second concept, that of restoring current qualityof muni- cipal water supplies was investigated because it was felt that such an analysis would represent more closely the actual economic effects of GDU. However, this hypothesis is not completely accurate for the following reason. Many constituents contribute to the quality of a raw water supply, In some cases, a particular constituent can be brought under control easily and inexpensively. For example, suspended solids can be removed by flocculation using alum. In other cases, the con- stituents are much more difficult and expensive to remove. Such is the case for sulfate or nitrates. In affording the more "advanced" treat- ment, such as reverse osmosis, to treat these difficult-to-remove constituents, other constituents are improved over and above levels required for drinking water. This occurs in the municipalities of the study area in attempting to restore the municipal water to current quality in the post-GDU period. In lowering sulfate and nitratecon- 51 centrations to current levels, or at least close to them, the levels of other constituents(e.g., sodium) are lowered beyond current levels, resulting in better quality water supplies than presently experienced. Thus, the second type of analysis will overestimate the true economic impact of GDU on municipal water supplies. On the basis of the two concepts used, it is not possible to estimate accurately the effect of GDU on water supply costs. Using currently installed or planned equipment, while meeting most of the drinking water standards, will not give public water suppliesof existing quality. Treating all constituents to at least their current levels will result in an actual improvement over present water quality. The true economic impact of GDU lies in between these two cost esti- mates, but cannot be estimated. Two components of water supply costs were analyzed: chemical and capital. The chemical costs are one componentof total annual operating and maintenance costs shown in Table D.III.3.It was assumed that the non-chemical component of annual0 & M costs would remain constant. Thus, the analysis presented in this section deals only with chemical costs. The capital costsof new equipment required in the post-GDU period were estimated by the Engineering Committee (28) and are annualized here usinga 10 percent interest rate and a 25-year period. To obtain estimated annual chemical costs, the unit chemical costs (i.e., dollars per1,000 gallons) were multiplied by the1975 annual pumpages in the municipalities under consideration. In other words, pumpage was held constant in order to examine the "pure" GDU effects on water supply costs. The effects of GDU on these costs in the future were not examined because the years in which the peak leaching and the equilibrium effect will be felt are beyond the water use forecasting horizon used in this chapter. The results of this analysis below are merely indicationsof the way GDU will tend to affect costs, not forecasts of the actual costs to be incurred. Table D.III.12 shows the unit chemical costs of treatment derived by the Engineering Committee. These unit costs currently range from 38 cents per 1,000 gallons in St. Jean down 12to cents per 1,000 gallons in Portage la Prairie. This excludes the unit cost for the planned plant at Souris, which is not yet operational. The inverse relationship between unit costs and annual pumpage, which reflects the size of the municipality,is attributable to economies of scale and is shown graphically by curve'A' of Figure 1. The third columnof Table D.III.12 gives theunit costs of obtaining the best quality water from existing or planned plants in both the peak leaching and the equilibrium periods.All unit costs rise to a certain extent, with the largest proportional rises (i.e., over current costs) occurring for the new plant at Souris(52 percent) 52 Table D.III.12: Unit Chemical Costs for Municipal Water Supplies 1975 in ($/1,000 gal.) MunicipalityAnnual Pumpage Current Cost with GDU and Cost with GDU to Give (mgy)UnitCostCapacity Operation Existing Quality* of Existing Plants PeakEquilibrium Peak Equilibrium St. Jean .45 7.5 .46 .38 .96 .95 Emerson 21.9 .30 .33 .83 .33 .83 41.3 .30 .34 .34 .79 .84 .79 .34 .34 Morris .30 41.3 Selkirk -ExistingSupply 506.2 .25 Existingwell supply replaced in 1976 -Supply New 499.5 N.A. .02 ** .01** ,41**.42** cn w Souris -ExistingSupply 50.4 .33 Existingtreatment plant being replaced -New Supply -New 50.4 .65 .90 .99 2.56 2.48 Portage la Prairie -ExistingSupply 608.1 .12 .17 .16 1.17 1.15 -New Supply -New 608.1 N.A. .05 ** .04 ** 1.04** 1.04** * The figures in columns under Peak and Equilibrium are the unit chemical costs after the blending of water treated by reversed osmosis and water treated by existing methods or by methods currently incorporated into planned treatment plants. The mixing ratios and the unit costs of treatment by reverse osmosis are as follows: MunicipalityPercent treated by Percent treated by Unit costs ($/1,000 gsl.) existingmethods reverse osmosis of reverseosmosis 80 20 St. Jean 80 2.96 Emerson 2.83 80 20 Morris 80 20 2.59 80 20 2.02 20 Selkirk 80 Souris 30 70 3.24 Portage la Prairie 50 50 2.17 ** In addition to current costs, which are not available,as these plants are not yet operating or have only recently begun to operate. Source : (28) Figure D 111.1 UnitChemical Costs of Municipal Water Supply" Curve A - UnitChemical Costs of Current Water Treatment (using existing treatment I- plants in all municipalities) 2.5 Curve B - UnitChemical Costs in post-GDU period toobtain best quality water from existing or planned treatment plants (using new plants in Portage la Prairie and Souris. 2 *- Curve C - UnitChemical Costs of restoring at least current water quality(using new plants at Portage la Prairie and Souris ) m $ 1.:I* - 0 V rl ld 0 a, k -P .rl c k 3 14 cd d k I I I b JII L L 1I ;: t I I 1 I cc ldo rnrn aJ rn .rl *rl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bk kk .aJ kg 1975 Annual Pumpage ( lo8 mgy ) $A is * Thesecurves are drawnon thebasis of peakimpact costs. Unit costs for theequilibrium period period would yield curves of almostidentical nature. and the existing plant at Portage la Prairie(42 percent). The rela- tively large rises at these municipalities occurs because the GDU impacts on stream water quality are greatest on the Souris and Assini- boine rivers. The relationship between annual pumpage and unit cost of treatment is generally preserved, but, as indicated by Curve'B' of Figure D.III.l, is somewhat interrupted at Souris and Portage la Prairie, reflecting the relatively large proportional increase in unit costs The last column of Table D.III.12 shows the unit costs of providing existing quality in both the peak impact and the equilibrium periods. In order to maintain existing qualityof municipal water supplies, water treated by reverse osmosis, which removes most of the dissolved constituents in the water, will be mixed with water treated by existing methods. The mixing ratios are given in the footnoteof Table D.III.12. The unit costs shown in the last columnof this table take these ratios into account. Comparing the unit costs of providing existing quality water to the unit costs withoutGDU, it is clear that a relatively large increase occurs in all municipalities, with the largest occurring at Souris and Portage la Prairie. Again, this reflects the relatively greater impactsof GDU on the Souris and Assiniboine rivers, as compared to the Red River. The marked distortion in Curve 'C' of Figure D.III.l shows this impact on unit costs. The annual costs of water treatment and the impact of GDU upon them are shown in Table D.III.13. In 1975, annual chemical costs totalled $239,600 with existing treatment plants. These costs would have been somewhat more had the planned treatment plants been in opera- tion. With post-GDU water quality imposed upon the existing plants, which would then have to be operated at capacity, the incremental cost (i.e., over and above current costs) of water treatment wouldbe $39,800 for the peak impact period and$30,800 in the equilibrium period. With the planned treatment plants in operation, these costs would be $59,800 and $42,900 respectively. As mentioned earlier in this section, many of the post-GDU constituents of water quality would exceed the acceptable levels set by the Canadian Drinking Water Standards because the existing or planned treatment plants would be unable to lower their concentrations. To restore existing water quality would require reverse osmosis to treat part of the municipal water supplies for each community. The incremental annual costs, for chemicals plus operation of the reverse osmosis units would total $979,300 for the peak impact period and $965,300 for the equilibrium period. Annualized capital costs to pro- vide the required reverse osmosis units would total $920,600 under peak impact conditions and $898,800 for equilibrium. Thus, to maintain current water quality in the post-GDU period would cost $1,899,900 for peak impact and $1,864,'200 for equilibrium. Were this treatment option adopted, all communities would enjoy better quality water supplies than they do currently. 55 Table D.III.13: hpact of GDU on Hunicipal Water Supply Costs (1,000 dollars). Total MunicipalityChemicalAnnualIncremental Chernical IncrementalTreatmentAnnualized Capital Annual Costs, 1975 Costswith GDUCostsGDU withand to costs Operationsof Current Give Current Water costs OK PlannedPlants at S~pplyQuality Peak Efficiency Peak Equilibrium Peak EquilibriumEquilibriumPeak Peak Peak EquilibriumEquilibrium Peak 7.3 15.9 11.5 2.9 .6 .5 4.4 .5 st. Jean .6 2.9 4.2 11.5 b 16.7 10.1 28.3 21.6 Emerson 6.6 .7 .6 11.6 11.5 19.8 51 .O 41.8 12.5 1.7 1.6 20.2 1.6 Morris 1.7 12.5 22.0 30.8 Ln Selkirk N/A N/A N/A NIA o\ -ExistingSupply 129.2 ?;/A NfA N/A Nf A 441.2 436.7 -New Supplyy N/A 10.0 5.5 209.8 205.3 231.4 231.4 Souris Nf -Existing Supplyy 16.5 5.9 7.6 Nf A NIA N/A N/A N/A A 175.6 171.2 -New Supply 96.3 32.912.5 16.8 91.9 79.3 79.3 Portage la Prairie N/A NfA -Existing29.2 Supply 71.9 22.2 N/A Nf A N/A NfA 550.9 1,187.9 1,181.3 -New Supply N/A 637.030.0 22.2 630.4 550.9 Totals 37.2 95.2 74.9 -With Existing Supply 239.6 30.8 39.8 36.2 38.2 59.0 1,899.9 1,864.4 -With New Supply 239.6 59.b 42.9 979.3 965.6 920.6 898.8 Source: (28) To recapitulate, for the peak impact period, the economic impact of GDU on annual municipal treatment costs would lie between $59,800 and $1,899,900 over and above current costs, assuming the construction of currently planned plants. For the equilibrium period, this range would be between $42,900 and $1,864,400 annually. 57 IV. INDUSTRIAL WATER USE (a)Introduction The industrial base of the study area is a diversified one. In the large cities particularly, representatives of almost all major manu- facturing groups can be found. In addition, in the Manitoba portion of the area, there are two thermal electric power generating plants. Despite this diversity, however, firms based upon the processing of agricultural produce tend to dominate the industrial structure in terms of the number of plants, although not necessarily in terms of the value of out- put. Firms in the food and beverage industry tend to be in small comparison with plants in other industrial groups, such as the iron and steel industry. Thus, they tend to require less water than the huge plants of the latter industrial groups. Also, food and beverage plants in general require high quality water for processing and incorporation into end products. The treatment of intake water required to yield this high quality is water often too expensive to justify small plants installing owntheir water treatment facilities. For these two reasons, small size and high quality water require- ments, most of the industries in the study area are suppliedby public sys tems. (b) Methodology As was the case for the municipal section, the determination of current water use and the projection of future water use for industry re- / quire two kinds of analysis. Firstly, economic forecasts of the level of industrial production in 1985 and2000 must be made. These forecasts include both estimates of future production by currently established industries and forecasts of new industries which may be established in the area. The second type of analysis, water use forecasting, involves projection of re- circulation technology, gross water requirements by industry, and foreseeable processing changes which may alter water requirements. For the United States, the task of assessing current and future industrial water uses was relatively simple, since heavy reliance was placed upon the SRRRB report. The industrial water use forecasts in that report were obtained using standard forecasting techniques. Basically these techniques consist of allocating to the region under study, shares of future national production by various industrial activities on the basis of past regional performance. For Canada, the industrial water uses, especially in the future, were much more difficultto compile. For the current situation, only three plants had to be dealt with- two thermal power plants and a beet sugar refinery. Water withdrawal figures for these establishments were obtained from the Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage- ment and an Environment Canada survey of industrial water use.All data were adjusted to the common base year, 1975. 58 As notedabove, the determination of future water useinvolves notonly the projection of currentuses to the target years, but also the forecastingof new industrial activities. Forexisting industries, water use was forecastedusing different assumptions regarding growth rates, ratesof water recirculation, and in the case of thethermal power plants, theload factor of the plant.* The precisemethodology used to forecast water use,along with the basic data used is dealtwith in Attachment D.Iv.~. The projection of new industrial operations which will be estab- lished in the area overthe next 25 years is a task which has a great deal of uncertaintyassociated with it. Sincethe study area's industrial base, especiallyoutside of Winnipeg, is small, thestatistical data required to project t'he nature of future industries in the area usingnormal research techniques are uniformlyconfidential. This situation forced the adoption of a less rigorousthan desirable approach. Consultations were heldwith provincialand federal officials knowledgeable with southwestern Manitoba to identify the number of new industrieswhich could be reasonably antici- patedfor the area by1985 and 2000. An attempt was also made to assess the probabilitywith which industries would locate here. The resultsof this analysis were thenarranged into three sets offuture scenarios designed to givelow, medium andhigh water useforecasts. These futures are shown in Table D. IV.l. Ingeneral, the new industriesappearing in the "low" future in 1985and 2000 are virtual certainties for establishmentin the study area.Those appearing in the "medium" futurecan be reasonably anticipated, whilethose in the "high" future are givento indicate the highest degree of developmentwhich may beexpected. The reasons for theselection of industries are givenin Attachment D.IV.1. Inthe discussion below, only the "medium" future is dealtwith. Water usedata were simulatedfor the new industries on the basis of observedpatterns of water usein similar establishments,either in Manitoba orin other parts of the country. The assumption made here is that the new plants, when they commence operation, will have water require- mentssimilar to plants of the same typealready established. The precise modellingprocedure followed to simulate the water use of plants to be established is outlinedin Attachment D.IV.1. The analysisof GDU effectson industries began with an examina- tion of the industrial processes being used in the currently operating plantsand the range of possible processes which could be used for projected plants. The type of industryand the process in use led to a determina- tion of water qualityrequirements for the various industries. These requirements were thencompared to the available water quality in the post-GDU period. For currentlyoperating plants, the incremental costs (i.e.over and above current costs) of treatingthe intake water were calculated,and these were takento be the economic impacts of GDU. * Plant load factor refers to the percentage of time duringthe year in whichthe plant operates. 59 Table D.IV.1: IndustrialFutures for the Manitoba Portim of the GDI' 3tudjr Area. 1985 Basin 1975 -Low Med i urn High Red M PI E N WH m WE LTl MS MS MS MS G W B D Assiniboine - - I,v v v v ,v v ,I' 0 - P P P P P P Souris - - - F - F F NOTES: Inthis table, the following symbols have been used: Industriescurrently in the area Projectedindustries __- $1 = Manitoba Hydro V = vegetableprocessor (Assiniboine) WH = WinnipegHydro W = winery(Red) MS = XanitobaSugar D = distillery (Red) G = glass plant (Red) F = fertilizerplant (Souris) B = sugarbeet processor (Red) P = potatoprocessor (Assiniboine) N = nuclear power plant (Lake Winnipeg) (c)Currentzater Use In1975, industry withdrew 82.34 mgd fromrivers of thestudy area (Table D.TV.2).The two thermalpower plants in the Canadian portion of the Red sub-basinaccounted for just over 76 percent of this total. Most of theindustrial withdrawal in the U.S. portion of the area.(sub- basins A and C) i.s attributable to sugarbeet processing. (d)Future Water ULe By 1985, industrial water use in thebasin is projectedto grow to about112 mgd, anincrease of 36 percentover 1975. Again the donlnant share of thl.s totai will be attributable to power generationin the Canadianpart of the Red River Basin.Expanding production of vegetables in the Portage la Prairie area will. justify construction of a vegetable processingplant in the Assinibotne sub-hasin. ThJs plant wi1.l require an estimated 0.27 mgd of water. By 2000, estimated industrial water use wf.l.1 rise to about 173 mgd, anincrease of 55 percent.over 1985. Power generationrequire- mentsagain dominate this total. In addition to expansions at theexist-- ingthermal power stations,the establishment of one nuclear power plant is expected in the LakeWinnipeg sub-basin. New industriesIn the Canadianportion of the Red sub-hasin will include a glass plant, a wineryand a. distillery.In the Assiniboine sub-basin, an additional vegetableprocessor and a potatoprocessor are expected. A fertilizer plant will probablybe established in the Canadian part of theSouris sub-basin by 2000. Waterquality requirements for industrialuses vary widely among industries.Because of this diversity of industrialwater quality requirements, it is not feasible here to state specjficvalues of accep- table intake water quality for every industrial use mentioned in this chapter.This section will deal withthe water quality requi.renent,s for thoseindustrial uses which currently exist in the study area or can be reasonablyanticipated in the future, namely: electric power generation, fertilizerproduction, glass manufacturing, food processing, and thr. production of wine and distil Ic.11 ~11irit~.P'ven thtm, only n general discussion oE important water q~j:ql itj p:iralw?ters will be attempted because of possible variations introduced by the wide variety of equip- ment,industrial processes, and operating cnnditi.onsavailable to these industrial users. (i) Stream Generation" "".-. and CoolingWater for strean generation andcooling is requiredin most f.ndustr-121 operations. In fart, cooling Table D.IV.2: Industrial Water Use, 1975, 1985 and2000 (U.S. andCanada). Sub-basin 1975 2000* 1985" A. Red River, Sheyenneand Wild Rice Rivers(to Canada/U.S.border) 15.7 16.0 15.3 B. Red River(from CanadianIU. S. border to Lake152.16Winnipeg) 95.34 66.64 C. Souris River (fromWintering River to Canadian1U.S. border) NIL NIL NIL m IQ I). Souris River (fromCanadian/U.S. border to Assiniboine River) NIL NIL NIL E. Assiniboine River (fromSouris to Red River) 1.13 NIL 0.27 Lake Winnipeg (South Basin) (South Winnipeg F. Lake NIL NIL 4.63 Lake Manitoba (South Basin) (South Manitoba G. Lake NIL NIL NIL TOTAL 82.34 111.61 173.22 * For1985 and 2000, thefigures given in this table relate to the "medium" term forecastof Attachment D.IV.l. For "low" and"high" industrial water useforecasts for Canada, the reader is referredto that attachment. water withdrawals for electric power generation and sugar beet processing represent the largest single industrial water use in the study area. Ideally, cooling waters should be:(a) non-scaling with regardto limited solubility compounds such as calcium carbonate and sulfate;(b) nonfouling as a resultof sedimentary deposits or biological growths; (c)and non- corrosive to the materials in the system. Cooling water use is normally characterized as once-through or recirculated..Table D.IV.3 shows quality requirements,subsequent to any treatment, €or both once-through cooling and makeup water for recirculation. As the name implies, once-through cooling systemsdo not reuse water. Water is usually taken froma large surface source, such as a lake or river, and returned to this source after having passed through the heat exchange equipment. The large volumesof water required in once- through cooling systems usually preclude the application of any but the most inexpensive water treatment. Screening to remove debris which would interfere with flow and chlorinationfor control of biological organisms that would impede water flow and heat transfer are usually the only treat- ment processes considered. Recirculating cooling water systems may utilize either cooling ponds or cooling towers for heat rejection. Makeup wateris added to replace that lost by evaporation. The wide variety of materials and operating conditions encountered in industrial heat exchange equipment, the chemical and physical changes which take place in the recirculated water, and the number of water treatment and conditioning processes available, make quality recommendations for recirculation makeup water of limited practical value. In general, the lower the hardness and alkalinity of the water supply, the more acceptableis itfor cooling tower makeup water(45). Also shown in TableD.IV.3 are the water quality raquirements for boiler feed water. In general, boiler feed water should be of such quality that it forms no scale or other deposits, causes no corrosion,and does not foam(45). Actual recommendations on the quality of water tobe used as boiler feed water dependon the boiler design, operating practices, operating temperature and pressures, makeup rates, and steam (2).uses The values for boiler feed water containedin Tehle D.TV.3 should be con- sidered a rough guide only. ii. Food Processing Industg a. Fruit and vegetable processing: The assurance of a good quality raw water supply of is primary importance to the fruit and vege- table processing industry for two reasons. First, the flavorof many processed foods can be seriously impaired by poor quality water; and secondly, the treatmentof water to obtain an acceptable quality can represent a substantial amountof the total production cost. Table D.IV.4 shows desirable levels of water quality for the food processing industry. These requirements may vary widely depending on the food being processed and the operations employed. 63 " ~ .__." -~ - __ "" _" "" -___I-----__-- Table ;.I,:.:: SelectedQuality Eeqliirenents of Yaterar Pcint of Use for Stear Ger.era:!cr. ad C0o:ir.E Ln HeatFxcbangersa B oiler feedwater Cj'mling water Cj'mling feedwater Boiler ~- " ""__""_""___I "_ ~ "" .. ______Quality GE waterprior tc the addition of chen;!cals used for internalconditioclng ___~_I -" "". ~ C ha racte ristic k Industrial Flectric util!t?tsFlectric CharacteristickIndustrial Once through recirculationXakeup for -I_ I__ - ." ""_ Low pressure Internedtate Htghpressure 0 to150 psig pressure 700 to1,500 150 to 700 Psig psig -"- Calcium(Ca) (C) 0.4 0.01 0.01 Xagnesium (Mg) (C) C. 25 0.01 0.01 Annnonia (NH4) 0.1 0.1 0.1 .07 Bicarbonate (HCO3) li0 120 4a 0.05 Sulfate (s04)(C) (C) (C) (dl Chloride(Cl) (C) (C) (C) (e, 1: Dissoived Solids 700 500 200 0.3 Rardness (CaC03) 350 1.0 0.07 0.07 Alkalinity (CaC03) 350 100 40 1 SuspendedSolids 10 5 0.5 0.05 """ -"__ "" a. Tablelimited to those substances of concernwhich nay increase as a result of CDU. c. Accepted as receive? (if meetingother iiniting values!;has never been a problen 8t concentrations b. Valuesthat should not be exceeded, units are mg/l unless otherwise indicated. encountered. Source:(45) d.Usually controlle6 by treatment for otherconstituents. " ""_ ___". Table D-IV.4: Selected Quality Requirements of Water at Pointof Use BY the Canned, Dried, and Frozen Fruits an.d Vegetables Industrya Characteristic Concentrationb Alkalinity (CaCO3) 250 Hardness (CaC03) 250 Calcium (ca) 100 Chlorides (Cl) 250 Sulfates (s04) 250 Nitrates (NO3) 1 oc Nitrites (N02) Not detectable Taste and Odor Not detectable Dissolved Solids 500 Suspended Solids 10 a. Table limited to those substances of concern which may increase as a result ofGDU. b. Units are mg/l, unless otherwise indicated. C. Because high nitrate intake can cause infant illnesses, the concen- tration of nitrates in waters used for processing baby foods should be low. Source : (45) Those food processing operations which use water for blanching or direct incorporation into the finished product are most dependent upon water quality. It is essential that water used in these operations be of potable quality and absolutely free of taste and odor causing compounds. Other operations which are dependent on good quality water are the cleaning of raw foods, the hydraulictransportatim of the cleaned raw foods (flumes or pumping systems) and the rinsing of chemically peeled fruits and vegetables. A somewhat poorer qualityof water can be used in the hydraulic transportation of fruits and vegetables from the storage areas to the processing plants. Substantial amounts of water are also used to cool cans and jars after heat processing. Itis important that this cooling water be free from microorganisms which could cause spoilage if aspirated during the formation of a vacuum in the can or bottle. 65 b. Beet sugarprocessing: In a beetsugar processing plant water is comonlyused for six principal purposes: (1) the flume trans- portof beets from the stockpile area tothe processing site; (ii) the washing of adheredsoil from the beets; (iii) the actual processing of thesliced beets (extraction of sugarfrom the beet); (iv) the transport of beetpulp to the pulp press and lime mud tothe disposal site; (VIthe cooling of barometriccondensers used in theoperation of pan evaporators and crystallizers; and (vi)the cooling of the molasses solution (31). Most processesin a sugarbeet plant donot. require high quality water. Vherehigh-quality water is required(e,g., boiler feed water), condensate water from theheating and evaporation of raw juice is normally collectedand used. c.Production of wine and distilled alcohol: Large volumes of water are notrequired in the production wine, but water is an important factorfrom a qualitystandpoint. In order for a qualitywine to be produced,water which is incorporatedinto the final product must be free from taste andodor causing compoundsand low in TDS. Cooling water representsthe largest single water use in a distillery. However, as discussed Treviously, the quality of this water is relativelyunimportant. On the other hand, the quality of water whichbecomes part of the final product is of seriousconcern to the distiller. With theexception of these distilleries whichrely upon certainunique groundwaters for flavor, blending water is demineralizedprior to use. It is especiallyimportant from a flavor standpoint that the blending water befree from taste and odorcausing compoundsand low in sulfur and iron (115). iii. Flat GlassManufacturing: Flat glass is manufactured by meltingsand together with other inorganic materials andthen forming the molten-nraterial-into a flatsheet. Within the flat glass industry, severaldistinct manufacturing methods are used,namely, float, plate, sheet, and rolledprocesses. Although the raw materials andthe melting operations are essentially the same, eachprocess uses a different method forforrnjng the molten glass into a flatsheet. In thefloat process, the glass is dram across a molten tin bath; while in the plate process,rollers control the initial thickness with the final thickness determined by grLndIngand pnlishjng. The glass is formedby a verticaldrawing operation inthe sheet process. As inother industrial categories, the quality andquantity of water required in glassmanufacturing vary depending on theformi-ng method used and the operational characteristics of the indivi- dual.I.ndustrial facilities. The largeamounts of heatenergy used in the manufacturing of flat glass leads tolarge usages of cooling water to protectequipment fromexcessive temperatures. Cooling water is requiredfor all melting tanks,for the float bath in the float glass process, the forming rolls in the plate glassand rolled glass processes, and for the drawing kiln inthe sheet glass process. Boiler feed water is alsoan important requirementin a glassmanufacturing plant. The qualityrequirements for cooling water andboiler feed water in this industry wouldbe similar to those described previ.ously in this chapter. 66 Anotherprocess using large volumes of water is the grinding and polishing required in the plate process to achieve flat and parallel surfacesof good opticalquality. The grinding medium used is a sand and water slurrywith finer and finer sand being used as the glass plate passesthrough successive grinding stages. Although large volumes of water are required,the quality of water useddoes not have to be par- ticularly good. River water, if available, is generally used for grinding andpolishing. The last step inthe sheet glass and floatglass manufactming process is thewashing of thefinal product. This is usuallycarried out in a two orthree step process. Tn a typical three stepprocess, river water i.s use+ for the firstrinse, followed by a secondrinse of potable quali.ty water fol hwed by a f-lna.1 Yinse with rle--ionised water. 'In the final rinse it is i.nportantthat the rinse water be Low in suspendedand dissolved sol ids I.11 order. tc, preventspotting of the glass (31). iv ' Fertilizer-I___..Manufactura: The inrlusr.ria1.category of fertjlizarmanufacturing encompasses a wide range of chemical.compounds andindustrial processes. In themanutacture of niirogen andphosphorus there are at least 12 separateprocess operations which can beused to manufacturethe seven principal chemical fertilizers in use today. Also, many multipurposeplants manufacture more than one of thesechemical fertilizers.Because of the possiblecombinations of fertilizer manu- facturingoperations whllch could be employed, 3.t is difficult to present a meaningfuldiscussion on the water quality requirements for a proposed fertil-lzerplant. :rn most plants, raw water is usuallyconditioned by clarification,filtration, soften5ng and de-ionization to thedegree necessaryto allow its usefor process water and steam generation.Large volumes of cooling water, eitherrecirculated or once-through, are also requi.red.In general, the manufacturing of nitrogenfertilizer requires larger volumes of high quality wat:er than phr)sph;lte fert i 1. izer l)r(>duCti,3n. Mast of this increase can he ;rtt-rj.huted to larter volllrnc~sof steam used in the manuracture of nitrogen t-ert:i1.i.z<>.*(31). (f) Effect of-_I_ Current Water QuantitLa-ng-guality >n Curre$; and Future Industrial Use Water is animportant ra.w material forindustry. The availability ofadequate supplies of good quality water is a factor whichmust be con- sideredin locating new industryin an area. ThroughoutCanada, it is noteablethat major industrial concentrations have occurred in areas where water has beenabundant. Some of these areas are thelower Great Lakes, the St.Lawrence lowlands and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. However, great care mustbe taken in interpreting these concentrations ofindustry a:3 due principally to the availability of water, 3s even that water hasbeen a majorfactor in industrial location. There are countless areas throughoutthe country where water ..I,; abundant,but wherethere is no industry.Conversely, industry has developed in rela- tivelywater-short areas such as Edmonton,Calgary and Winnipeg. 67 Water availability is only one of the factors considered in locating an industry in a given area, and in fact, appears to be a rela- tively minor factor in most location decisions. Water costs are a rela- tively small partof total industrial production costs, even in so- the called "water-intensive'! industries such as pulp and paper and thermal power generation. New or improved technologies have made industry less dependent upon water by inducing higher degreesof water recirculation. Improvements to allow even more recirculation are likely in the future. There are many examplesof "water-intensive" industries located in water deficient areas because of other advantages, such as labour availability, the presence of markets, and other considerations. It is clear that water per se either in its qualitative or quantitative dlmensions will not determine Industrial locationor growth. In the study area, no case has come to light where water quantity or quality was the principal determinantof industrial location or a decision to relocate a plant outside the area.As noted above, suspended solids contained in the river water used for industrial cooling may reduce the life expectancyof pumps. Also, suspended solids in the cooling water may cause excessive settling in condensers. However, these cannot be classified as uses foregone, but merelyfactors which increase operating and maintenance costs. The Campbell Soup Company at Portage la Prairie is forced during the summer months to curtail the production of certain types of soup because of the taste of the water. This is the only instanceof an industrial use foregone which has been documented in the course of this study. (g) Effects of on Current and Future Industrial Use ." ." GDU ""- The effectsof GDU upon industries in the Canadian portionof the study area can be discussed in terms of the increases in water treatment costs to the industrial user. The procurement of the desired finished water qualityfor the industry is primarily a functionof economic factors, such as cost minimization, since modern water treatment technology permits raw waterof virtually any quality to be treated to provide the characteristics desired by industr.y at the point of If use. water treatment costs are only a small ofpart production and marketing costs, then raw water quality mayof belittle concern in the selection of a suitable industrial site.If, on the other hand, water treatment costs area significant operating cost, the closer the composition of the raw water supply approaches the required composition, the more desir- able the industrial site. For existing industries, improvements in the quality of the raw water supply may only incrementally decrease treatment costs because alteration of the water treatment facility may not be economical. (i.e., only chemical cost will be reduced). However, deter- ioration of water quality beyond the design range of the treatment equip- ment may cause treatment costs to increase substantially as a result of expenditures for new equipment and the increased cost associated with operating this equipment. The water quality requirementsof industries which are seif-suppliedfrom the rivers of the area were analyzedand increasesin treatment costs were calculatedif appropriate, For those industriessupplied by public water systems, it is anticipatedthat the increasedmunicipal treatment costs identified in Chapter 3 will be passedon to the industrial user in the form of increased water rates. The effects of GDU upon water treatmentcosts for projected industries are discussed in thissection but have not been quantified. Such an analysis is notpossible w:lthout having available information relatedto the source of supply (public or self-supplied),the exact manu- facturingprocesses to be used, and the water treatmenttechnologies to beemployed. 1. Red River(from international boundary to LakeWinnipeg) a. ExistingIndustries (1)Manitoba Hydro, Selkirk: Water forthe Manitoba Hydro Plant at Selkirk is obtainedfrom two sources. Well water is withdrawnand treatedfor domestic use, bearing cooling, and general service use. The Red Riverserves as thesource of boiler feed water andcondenser cooling water. The principal effect of GDU onManitoba Hydro has been identified as an increase in the cost of treating Red River water for use as boiler feed water. G:DU will noteffect the well water supplyand will have no significant effect upon theuse of Red River water for coolingpurposes. The high pressure boilers at theManitoba Hydro facility have boilerfeed water requirements similar tothose identified for electric utilities in TableD.IV.3. Extensive treatment of the Red Riverwater, includingcoagulation, sedimentation, softening, filtration and dimerali- zation, is requiredto meet theserequirements. It is evidentthat any elevation in theconcentration of TDS, majorions and hardness in the Red River will increase treatment costs.Increases over historic conditions for these constituents were calculated for the peak impact period and the equilibriumperiod using the best estimate and highwater quality pro- jections (24) foreach period. An analysis was made ofthe effects these increases in chemicalconstituents wouldhave upon thevarious treatment processes.Increased chemical and capital costs were estimated by the EngineeringCommittee (28) and are shown inTable D.IV.5. It is recognized thatchemical costs represent only one element in thetotal operation andmaintenance cost. However, it was assumed thatthe non-chemical elementsof this cost wouldremain constant. The results of this analysis show thatManitoba Hydro's existing treatment plant has the capability to provide adequate treatment under projected best estimate conditionsfor the peak impact period and equi- libriumperiod. Unit chemical costs for the peak impact period are projectedto i.ncrease by 12 percentcausing annual treatment costs to increaseby $1,620. An eightpercent increase in unit chemical costs andan annual increase in total treatment cost of $1,080 has been projected for the equilibrium period. 69 Table D.IV.5: Iapact of GDU on Water Supply Costs at Planitoba Hydro. Chemical Costs to Achieve Chemical and Capital Cost to Treatment Objectives During Achieve Treatment Objectives Best Estimate Conditions During High Conditions WaterUse Chemical Cost (1975) Total ChemicalAnnual Incremental Total Chemical Annual incremental Capital Total Annual Period MGY $/1,000 gallonsCost, S/l,OOO gal. Increase, $ Cost, $/l,OOOgal.Increase, $ Cost, $ Incremental Increase, $ PeakImpact 9.0 1.49 1.67 1,620 2.09 5,400 800,000 93,540 w 0 Equilibrium 9.0 1.49 1.61 1,080 1.94 4,050 800,000 92,190 Source: (28) When the conditions in the Red River approachthe high quality projections,the existing treatment plant will beunable to treat the boilerfeed water tothe desired quantity. A capitalexpenditure of some $800,000 will benecessary to increase demineralizer treatment capacityand provide additional storage of demineralized water. Also, chemicalcost of treating water duringthe peak impact period and equi- librium period will increase 40 percentand 30 percent respectively. Combining theseincreased chemical costs with the capital costs, annualized at 10 percent over a 25 yearperiod, gives the total annual incrementalincrease shown inTable D.IV.5. (2) ManitobaSugar Company, Winnipeg:River water is used, withouttreatment, only forthe c.ooling of atmosphericcondensers. No significant adverse effects as a result of GDU are anticipated. (3) WinnipegHydro, Winnipeg: Water withdrawnfrom the Red River is usedwithout treatment forcooling purposes only. No significant adverseeffect is anticipated as a result of GDU. (4) IndustriesUsing Municipal Water Supplies: Two industries, Danford Estate Wines, Selkirk,and Electro Knit Industries,Selk.irk, rely on high quality municipal water in their manufacturing operations (114). As shown in Chapter 3, water withcurrent quality characteristics can be made available in the post-GDU period at an increased cost to the consumer. b.Projected Industries: As shown in Table D.IV.1, four new industries have been projected for the Red River sub-basinby the year 2000. Theseinclude a winery,distillery, beet sugar plant, and a glassplant. Increases in TDS andmajor ions as a resultof GDU will result in increases inthe cost of providing boiler feed water and low TDS finalrinse water forthe glass plant. Boiler feed water treatment costs for the distillery would also increase as a result of GDU. The costof providing high quality water for incorporation into wines and distilled spirits will increase as a result of GDU. 2. SourisRiver (from international boundary to Assinboine River) a. ExistingIndustrial Use: No industrieshave been identified which currently rely upon the Souris River as a sourceof water supply. High quality process water is required by theSuperior Cheese Company, Souris;however, the municipal supply is deemed suitable for their needs (114). The effectof GDU upon thisindustry will mostprobably be an increase in water rates proportional to the increases in municipal water treatmentcosts identified in Chapter 3. 71 b.Projected Industrial Use: A fertilizerplant has been projectedfor the Souris basin by the year 2000. Increasesin TDS, major ions, and hardness in the Souris River resultingfrom GDU will increase the cost of treating water to the high quality necessary for boiler feed water andprocess water. Also, increasesin biomass inthe river as a result of GDU couldcause fouling of heat exchange equipment. Increased flows in the SourisRiver as a result of GDU could provide some benefit as a sourceof cooling water. 3. AssiniboineRiver (from the Souris River tothe Red River) a. ExistingIndustrial Use: There are no documented industrial water withdrawalsfrom this segment of the Assiniboine River. Campbell Soup Company ha6 a contract with Portage La Prairie to deliver a specified volumeof water (400,000 GPD) of a specifiedquality (hardness less than 125 mg/l, TDS less than 300 mg/l,and no objectionable taste andodor). This water is usedfor soup dilution, blending, and vegetable washing. The municipal water notonly represents an important factor in the pro- duction of a qualityproduct but also represents a significantpercentage ofthe total production cost. As discussedin Chapter 3, maintenance of current treated water quality during the post-GDU period will necessitate increasedmunicipal treatment costs. It is reasonableto assume that these increased costs will bepassed on to the water users in the form of rate increases. b.Projected Industrial Use: Potatoand vegetable processing plantshave been projected for the Assiniboine River (Table D.IV.l). Treatmentcosts for boiler feed water andprocess water usedfor blanching or incorporation in final products will beincreased as a result of GDU. Of particularconcern are increasesin TDS, majorions, hardness andpossible taste andodor causing substances resulting from increased algalpopulations. 4. LakeWinnipeg The nuclear power plantproposed for Lake Winnipeg would not be affected by GDU. 72 V. AGRICULTURAL USE (a)Introduction Foralmost all partsof the study area, agriculture is the dominanteconomic activity. The agriculture of the Souris, Assiniboine and Red Riverbasins, especially in the fertile Red RiverValley, is more productiveand diversified than that of the cereal andgrazing economiesfurther west. This is duein large part to the availability of more moisturecombined with the natural fertility of the area's alluvial and lacustrinesoils. Pasture, crop and rangeland account for between 70 and 85 percent.of the total land area. In theUnited States portion of the study area about 79 percent ofthe total land area is usedfor agricultural purposes, with 66 percent incropland and 8 percentin pasture and rangeland. Over 80 percentof the totalcash receipts is derivedfrom crops. Principal crops include wheat, barley,hay, oats, flax, corn, soybeans, potatoes, sunflowers, and sugar beets. About66,000 acres arecurrently being irrigated using both surface andgroundwater. Inthe Canadian portions of the Souris, Assiniboine and Red River basins,agriculture is also the dominanteconomic activitywith about 75 percentof the area incrops. Agricultural use rangesfrom highly intensified usein the eastern portion of the study area to a lesser degreeof intensi- ficationin the west. A summary ofcrops of significance to Manitoba is presentedin Table D.V.l. Thenumber of acres ofparticular crops currently beingirrigated is shown inTable D.V.2. Agricultural activity in the study area consists of extensive drylandgrain farming combined withlivestock production. In theSouris andAssiniboine River basins, cereal cropsand livestock production are dominant,while in the Red RiverBasin a more intensified agriculture for grains,sugar beets and other cash crops is dominantbecause of the differ- encein climate, topographyand soil characteristics. About2,000 acres are presentlybeing irrigated from surface and groundwater sources. Since agriculture is heavilydependent upon physical characteristics, some of thephysiographic material outlinedin Chapter I is recappedin the appro- priatesections of thischapter. Two waterways in the study area havepotential for commercial wild rice production. The east sideof Lake Winnipeg is suitablefor rice but nocommercial harvest exists on the shore of the lake. However, rice is harvestedupstream in the many east side rivers. The Red River may also havepotential for wild rice production.River bottom soils are suitable for rice production,but large fluctuations in river water levelsand current levels of TDS and sulfatesprevent rice culture in the stream itself (91). Plansfor paddies near the river, using river water bypumping, have been discussedfrom time to time. The potentialvalue of this rice production hasnot been determined. 73 Table D.V.l: Summary of Crop Productionin Manitoba. 1975 . . Farm Value Crop Acres YieldTotal per PriceProduction Acre (bushel)(bushels) (000) (bushels) Wheat ...... 3.100. 000 25.2 78.000. 000 $273.$3.50 000 Oats ...... 1.100. 000 45.5 50.000. 000 1.35 67 .000 Barley ...... 1.500. 000 34.0 51.000.250 000 89. 1.75 Flax ...... 750 .000 11.2 8 ..500400 . 000 52 6.25 Rye ...... 102 .000 24.5 6252 .500 .000 5. 2.25 Mixed Grains .... 200. 000 37.5 7.500. 000 1.55 11 .625 GrainCorn ...... 12 .000 62.5 370750 .000 2. 3.16 FieldPeas ...... 35 .000 21.4 375750. 0003. 4.50 Buckwheat ...... 25. 000 17.2 430 .000 3.40 1. 462 Potatoes ...... 32 .000 234.0 7.500.500 000 17. 2.33 Rapeseed ...... 650 .000 16.9 11.000.800 000 52. 4.80 (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Sunflowers ...... 62. 000 1 .065 66.000. 000 270 6. .095 MustardSeed .... 23. 000 630 14.500. 000 .125 1. 812 ForageSeeds .... - - - - - (tons) (tons) (tons) Tame Hay ...... 1.250. 000 2.00 2.500. 000500 87. 35.00 Silage Corn ..... 33. 000 8.79 290.060 000 4. 14.00 Sugar Beets ..... 31.913 12.42 396. 868 218 13. 35.00 (pounds) (000 lbs) (centsper lb.) Asparagus ...... 125 1 .500 83 188 44.0 Beans(canning) .. 325 4. 14070 1. 360 5.1 (dry) ..... 1 .900 1y 000 342 1 900 18.0 Beets ...... 40 16 .000 58 640 9.0 Cabbage ...... 400 14. 500 464 5 .800 8.0 Carrots ...... 385 34. 500 13. 282 4.0 531 Cauliflower ..... 135 10 .000 270 1. 350 20.0 Celery ...... 40 35 .000 112 1. 400 8.0 Corn (fresh) .... 600 4. 400198 2 .640 7.5 (canning) . . 900 6 .280 114 5. 652 2.0 Cucumbers (fresh) 85 5 .800 64 493 13.0 Lettuce ...... 20 3 .000 60 8.4 5 Onions ...... 450 18 .500 500 8. 325 6.0 Parsnips ...... 60 12 .600 756 13.3 101 Peas (canning) . . 712 2 .900 93 2. 065 4.5 Tomatoes ...... 45 14 .600 657 17.6 116 Rutabagas ...... 265 28 .200 396 7. 473 5.3 OtherCrops ..... 95 - - - 95 Table D.V.2: Summary ofCurrent Irrigated Acreage (by crop) From Surface Water Sources inthe Manitoba Portion of theStudy Area Source Crop Irrigated Acreage Irrigated Crop Source Souris River Potatoes 50 SmallFruit 24 N ursery Stock Nursery 10 Ked River368 CropsGarden Market AssiniboineRiver Carrots 360 Parsnips 60 Rutabagas 239 Onions 150 ColeCrops (Cabbage, Cau liflower) 120 Cauliflower) Celery 20 Potatoes 100 Beekeeping is locallyimportant in the Manitoba portion of the study area withactivity in 31 rural municipalities and local government districts.In these areas, 216 beekeepersmaintained 16,316 colonies in 1975.The exact location of these colonies has not been identified in thisstudy. (b)Methodology (i)Current Use Inventory:For the United States portion of the study area, theprimary source of data for present agricultural use was the SRRS Study(64); This report is currentlybeing updated by the Upper 75 Mississippi River Basin Commission and, where available, the updated infor- mation was used. In addition, data generatedfor this area by other state and federal agencies were used where applicable. For the Canadian portion of the study area, current agricultural use was determined through personal contact with water users registered with the Water Resources Divisionof the Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management. As well, a significant number of nonregistered water users were identified through contact with the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. (ii) Projected Agricultural Uses: The primary source of data on projected water use in the United States portion of the study area was again the SRW Study updated where possible using data provided by the Upper Mis- sissippi River Basin Commission. The methodology used in theSRRRB Study consisted of an inventory of existing irrigation development followed by an evaluation of the poten- tial for irrigation in the Souris-Red-Rainy region. Potentially irrigable lands were delineated on the basis of existing land classification and soils information and on the basisof economic and engineering studiesof plans to deliver water to potentially irrigable lands. Delineation of potential irrigation development was predicated on enhancement and stabili- zation of local economies and not on any regional assignment of the need for food and fiber production. Projections of water use for agricultural purposes in the Canadian portion of the study area were, of necessity, less refined than the United States projections due to the lack of previous studies. Since time constraints did not permit a detailed analysis of existing data with respect to the economies of supplying water to potentially irrigable lands, projections of agricultural water use for the years1985 and 2000 were made through consultation with provincial and federal government officials. Projections of agricultural water use are discussed in detail in Attach- ment D.V.l. (iii) Effects of GDU on Irrigation: The assessment of the effects of GDU on the use of Souris, Assiniboine and Red River water for irrigation is based on several factors: (a) an evaluation of soil characteristics and land conditions and land classification specifications for existing irrigated areas of those valleys, (b) projected concentrations of TDS in streamflows of the rivers (24) , (c) crop tolerances to salinity (81,104, 4), (d) leach- ing fractions (the fraction of infiltrated water that passes beyond the root zone) for land groups in those areas and particular (58),crops and (e) calculated values of the Sodium Adsorption Ratio(SAR)l for resulting streamflows (82, 33). 1 A ratio for soil extracts and irrigation waters used to express the relative activity of sodium ions in exchange reactions with soil. 76 In general, the suitabilityof a water supply for irrigation (with respect to water quality or salinity) must be determined by an analysis of the environmental setting of the project on the following basis : a. An initial determination of the levels at which a particular soil can be expected to equilibrate with the predicted irrigation water applied. Such an evaluation requires appraisals of water transmission character- istics of the soil, climatic conditions, particularly as relatedto evapotranspiration and rainfall, anticipated quality of groundwater levels, depth at which groundwater levels are to be controlled, and fundamental soil properties, particularly those influencing water transmission under both saturated and unsaturated flow conditions. b. Prediction of the anticipated levels at which exchangeable sodium will equilibrate with the applied irrigation water. This will involve appraising changes in the water quality over time,soil characteristics, particularly clay minerology, the possibility of calcium carbonate precipi- tation in the soil, capillary riseof salts from the groundwater, plus other essential factors such as climate, cropping systems, and anticipated cropping practices. c. Determination of salt tolerances of crops to be grown. d. Determination of influences of toxic ions on crops. This would involve determinations of concentrations in the soil and the water of such elements as boron, lithium, and selenium. This appraisal would then require relating toxicity levels of the ions to tolerance levels of the crops to be grown in the project area and potential secondary toxicities to animals utilizing the plants. The determinationof the suitability of water for irrigation involves integrating crop, land and water factors. In this process, land classification surveys are used to delineate land classes that respond to a water supply of a given quality with anticipated management. Suitability of an irrigation water supply depends on what can be done with the water if it is applieda given to soil under a particular set of circumstances. The successful long-term use of any irrigation water depends on climatic factors such as rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and wind,soils (particularly infiltration and permeability), drainage, crop salt tolerance, and irrigation and land management practices. Plant growth on saline soil, as related to water, involves an integration of the following variables affecting moisture availability in the root zone: (a) variation in salt distribution within the soil mass and its consequent effect on the variation in the osmotic pressure of the soil solution ata given moisture content,(b) variation in osmotic pressure in relationto change in moisture content,(c) variation 77 in moisture tension in relation to moisture content,(d) variation in moisture content within the soil mass at a given time, (e) and variation in total water content of the soilin the root zone with time(20). The basic approach to studying the impact of on GDU the use of Souris, Assiniboine, and Red River water for irrigationwas as follows: a. Water quality data for the rivers were obtained to represent both pre- and post-project conditions(24). These data also represented conditions that might be expected under equilibrium conditions (when most of the project lands had reached a state of salt balance) and peak leaching conditions (during the time when equilibrium was being achieved). (Tables D.V.24, D.V.25, D.V.28 andD.V.30). b. Land classification information for areas of Manitoba being irrigated at present and for those lands with irrigation potential was obtained from the Canada and Manitoba Departments of Agriculture and Manitoba Soil Survey (Attachment D.v.~). Land classification standards from these surveys were used to classify soil suitability for irrigation in the basins (31, 32). c. Data on crop tolerances to salinity and other toxic substances were obtained from and compiled by theU.S. Salinity Laboratory at Riverside, California (39) (Table D.V.20). d. Using post-project equilibrium irrigation water (with maximum salinity concentration), a weighted average conductivity was computed for rain- fall (ECrw) and irrigation water (ECiw). Use of the maximum TDS concen- trations under equilibrium conditions providesa safe estimate of projected salinity effects on irrigation uses because it covers all equilibrium conditions, best estimate peak leaching conditions, and is generally within 10 percent of the high peak leaching values (relatively short lived occurrences). e. Computations of electroconductivity for the applied water (rainfall and irrigation) are based on rainfall during the growing season being about equal in volume to that of the irrigation water except for those crops whose consumptive use requirements exceed 26 inches per year. Because the average rainfall during the growing season is approximately 13 inches (12), a greater amount of irrigation water would be required for crops having water requirements in excess of 26 inches. Attach- ment D.V.3 presents estimated consumptive uses by various crops. f. This information was then used in the following equation (58) to derive the minimum leaching fraction that must be obtained to main- tain specified salinity levels in the active root zone of irrigated crops : LF = EC(rw + iw) 5ECe - 1 LF is the leaching fraction,EC(rw + iw) is the weighted average conductivity of the rainwater and irrigation water, and ECe is the 78 conductivityof a saturatedpaste extract of thesoil. When irrigation water salinity is belowthreshold values for crops being considered, there will beno crop yield reductions associated with irrigation practiceswhich produce these leaching fractions. Irrigation water with salinity levels abovethreshold values for those crops will experience yielddecreases approximately linearly related to salt concentration increases (39 Y 58) ECe data were takenfrom Table D .V. 20 as the thresholdelectroconductivity value of a saturated paste extract belowwhich no decline in crop yield wouldbe experienced by a specificcrop. It is recognizedthat other factors also have an influence on the crop-soil-waterrelationship and on the suitability of post-project stream- flowsfor irrigation: a. The preponderanceof divalent ions (Ca and Mg) inthe irrigation water (streamflow)and the gypsum contentnegate sodium as a source of sodicity(alkali) problems in the soils. b. The LanglierIndex also indicates that there could be some preci- pitation of solubleconstituents from the water in the soil medium, reducingthe concentration of TDS in thesolution phase. There is no allowancefor this precipitation in the analysis, but the possibility of its occurrenceprovides some safetymargin. c. No allowancefor leaching was made beyond theirrigation season (fromsnowmelt, rainfall,etc.). In actuality, there wouldbe some leachingduring that period since only about 60 to 75 percentof the annual precipitation occurs during the May-September period. d. The dataprovided by the Water QualityCommittee (24) are applicable onlyto the climatic and hydrologic conditions observed during the period 1960 to 1975. A droughtperiod such as thatwhich occurred duringthe 1930's is not reflected in the water qualityconditions pro- jected by the Committee.However, it is conceivablethat during such a drought,flows in the Souris River at Westhopewould be essentially irrigationreturn flows. Therefore, TDS concentrationsin the Souris Riverwould be the same as the TDS concentrationsin the return flows. It shouldbe recognized, however, that the return flows (although saline) would be theonly water in the river andcould provide some water that would nototherwise be available. In theAssiniboine River, and to lesser extent in the Red River, TDS concentrationswould be higher than those predicted by the Water Quality Committeebut below those which wouldoccur inthe Souris River. The occurrenceof these higher levels could cause yield reductions in sensitive crops if salinity levels exceed thresholdvalues, e. In theanalysis presented herein, a weightedaverage conductivity was computed forrainfall and irrigation water. Formost crops, this weightedaverage was computed on the basis of equalquantities of rain- 79 fall and irrigation water being applied during the growing season. In a dry year, it is likely that rainfall deficiencies would be made up by increased applications of irrigation water, The effect of this would be to increase the weighted average conductivityof the applied water to in excessof 1.0 mmho/cm (the threshold salt tolerance level for sensitive crops) to a maximum of 2.0 mmho/cm. Decreased yields of these sensitive crops would result. f. The analysis also considered specific ion effectsof post-project streamflow as related to irrigation uses, specifically for major constituents, minor elements, and heavy metals. Assessmentof major constituent effects was based on a reviewof current relevant litera- ture (39, 58) and consultations with soil scientists of the Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba, and Canada Department of Agriculture, Since concentrations of minor elements and heavy metals were not predicted to increase aas result of GDU (24), assessment of these effects was not undertaken. g. SAR values of post-project streamflows are as low as or lower than current soil SAR levels in irrigable soilsof the Souris, Assiniboine, and Red River basins. These conditions give no sodicity hazards for use of the water for irrigation in those basins. Tables D.V.24, D.V.25, D.V.28 and D.V.30 present streamflowSAR values and References31 and 32 present soil SAR values. The land classification standards controlling the irrigation suitability interpretation in surveys of the Portage la Prairie area and Morden-Winkler area disclose a permissible equilibrium electroconductivity level (i.e., a measure of salinity concentration)of 4 mmho/cm in the0-2 foot depth and 8 mmho/cm below 2 feet for Class1 or very good land. The good to very good soils in the Souris, Assiniboine and Red River basins are essentially non-saline (0.5 to 2.5 mmho/cm). The other two suitability classes permit concentrations much in excessof these levels. Normal manage- ment and drainage (natural or installed) that would be associated with utili- zation of Souris River water (under full GDU development) on lands meeting these requirements would support successful irrigation and would not bring about salinity concentrations in excessof threshold values for specific crops. It should be noted that because there are relatively few acres currently being irrigated in the Canadian portionof the study area, the crop specific reactions to the aforementioned parameters and their influ- ence on yields have not yet been documented in the current literature pertinent to the area. The evaluationof the adverse impactsof the above parameters, particularly as a result GDU,of requires research, and state- ments in this appendix madeto this effect based on research conducted elsewhere, although probable, should be interpreted with this in mind. The analysis presented herein is based upon historicpro- and jected levels of water quality parameters as determined by the Water Quality Committee for the four benchmark stations: the Souris River at Westhope, 80 the Assiniboine River at Portage la Prairie, and the Red River at both Emerson and Selkirk. The major emphasis of the analysis is basedon the maximum salinity values under equilibrium conditions as outlined in Attachment D.V.4. The effect of the projected high and low values for each parameter has been addressed, but in lesser detail. The analysis includes an assessment of incremental effects on important field and vegetable crops grown in Manitoba.A summary of crops of significance to Manitoba is presented in TableD.V.l. These crops span the range from relatively tolerant species such as barley, with thres- hold values of about 8mmho/cmof TDS, and wheat, which has a threshold value of about 6 mmho/cm, to relatively sensitive vegetable crops such as carrots and beans which can experience yield reductions if TDS concentrations in excess of 1 mmho/cm in soil saturated paste extracts are exceeded. Since the critical growth period for these cropsMay is through September, the use of water for irrigation purposes beyond this period was not assessed. Relatively few acresof cropland are currently being irrigated in the Canadian portion of the study area (TableD.V.2). The projection of the number of potential irrigated acresof particular crops has not been attempted because of the multiplicityof factors involved. The analysis presented herein is based on the crops presently of importance in the Manitoba agricultural picture. In projecting future irrigation in Hanitoba, it is expected that in addition to minor increases in specialty crops now being irrigated, there is a potential for converting substantial acreages of dryland production of potatoes, sugar beets, and beans to irriga- tion. (iv) Effects of GDU on Livestock and Poultry: Assessment of the effects of GDU on the ofuse Souris, Assiniboine and Red River streamflows for consumption by livestock and poultry is based on the following factors: 1) TDS concentrations of post-project streamflows of the river obtained from the reportsof the Water Quality committee(24); 2) Sulfate and nitrate concentration levelsof these flows obtained from the report of the Water Quality Committee(24); 3) An evaluation of heavy metals and minor elements present or antici- pated in these flows obtained from the reportof the Water Quality Committee (24) ; 4) Diseases that may be associated with the project's effects upon these streamflows outlined by the report of the Biology Committee(26); 5) Table U.V.22, a guide to the use of saline watersfor livestock and poultry (47); and 6) Table D.V.23, recommended limits of concentrations of some potentially toxic substances in drinking water for livestock and poultry(47). The analysis of these data was carried out with consultation from the Livestock Quality Standards Committee of Manitoba and personal communications with L. Lillie andJ. Harrison (105) (106). (v) Effects of Increased Flows due to GDU: The incremental agricultural damages resulting from flooding caused by the additionGDU of return flows to the Souris River were calculated as the difference in damage resulting from historic flows and historic plusGDU flows. The Souris River was divided into six reaches from U.S.the border to the Town of Souris. Rating curves available for each of the above reaches were used to convert the reconstructed daily discharges into flooded areas. Land use, obtained from Canada Land Inventory Maps, was classified as either cultivated or pasture land. For the cultivated acreage an average cropping pattern of 46 percent wheat, 15 percent barley, 11 percent flax, 3 percent specialty crops and 25 percent summer fallow was estimated(107, 108). Based on 1975 prices and average crop yields, flood damages for cultivated lands were determined based on relationships for the reduction in average crop yields versus delay in seeding. With an allowanceof 20 days for land to dry and crops to be seeded, areas flooded after25 April were considered to sustain damage. June20 was considered as the last viable date of seeding. For hayland and pasture areas, June1 has been estimated as the first day in which flooding will affect full production and 15 August has been estimated as the date following which flooding would result in com- plete loss in production (107, 110, 111). Summer floods which inundate seeded cultivated areas for a duration of seven days or longer were assumed to result in totalloss. crop Summer floods which inundate hayland for a duration12 daysof or longer were assumed to cause a totalloss in hay production. The methodology is discussed in more detail in AttachmentD.V.5. The additional flows that will accrue to the Souris and Red rivers as a result ofGDU could provide an opportunity to develop some of the irrigable lands in the two river basins. In determining the amount of land that could be developed, it was assumed that60 percent of the additional flows from GDU could be captured from the rivers. The water requirement for irrigation was estimated at8 cfs per 640 acres. It was also assumed that the develop- ment of lands would be based on the lowest incremental water yield, which occurs in May, and that other water uses would be satisfied from natural streamflow or from the remaining40 percent of the incremental flow dueto GDU. In addition, it was assumed that all irrigators would withdraw water at the same time. If a rotational irrigation schedule were applied, additional land could be irrigated. The analysis with respect to the potential irrigation benefits is discussed in more detail in AttachmentD.V.6. (c) Current Water Use A summary of current land use and associated water use in the study area is shown by sub-basin in the following sections. 82 1. Red,Sheyenne and Wild Rice Rivers (tointernational boundary) Thisportion of the study area encompasses all ofthe Red,Sheyenne andWild Rice RiverIjasins in the United States. About16.5 million acres ofland in theUnited States portionof the Red River Basin are presently used forcropland. The distributionof this land by landcapability class is shown inTable D.V.3.The landcapability classification system is describedin Attachment D.V.7. However, another 1.4 million acres of Class I, I1 or 111 capabilitywhich are currentlyused for pasture and rangeland should be suitablefor conversion to crop production. About 56,000 acres of landare currently being irrigated in this portion of the study area. As shown in Table D.V.4, the total current agricultural water usefor both irrigation andlivestock in the Red,Sheyenne and Wild Rice Basins in the UnitedStates amounts to about 146,000 acre-feetannually, For livestock use, water supplies are dividedequally between surface and groundwater sources.For private irrigation use, about 65 percent of the water is obtainedfrom surface water supplies;the remainder is fromgroundwater sources, 2. SourisRiver (from confluence with Wintering River to the international boundary) Thissub-basin includes only that portion of the Souris River Basinlocated downstream of the Wintering River in North Dakota. As in most of thestudy area, agriculture is thepredominant land use with about 80 percentof the total area incrop, pasture and rangeland uses. Small grains,mainly wheat and associated fallow land account for about 75 per- cent of the 3.9 million acres ofcropland. Flax, barley and roughages utilize mostof theremaining cropland acreage. A summary ofcurrent land usefor each land capability class inthe United States portionof the SourisRiver Basin is shown inTable D.V.5. About0.6 million acres of Class I, I1 or 111 capability are currentlybeing used for pasture rangeland. The SourisBasin is almostexclusively a drylandfarming area with onlyabout 2,000 acresof cropland currently under private irrigation and 8,000 acres underpublic irrigation. Table D.V.6 summarizesthe present agricultural water usein the Basin, which amounts to 18,160 acre-feet per year. Water usedfor livestock purposes is dividedequally between surface andgroundwater sources. Private irrigation utilizes surface water sources for 65percent of its requirements. The remaining35 percent is drawnfrom groundwatersources. Public irrigation relies entirely onsurface water suppliesfor its currentneeds. 3. Red River (From internationalboundary to LakeWinnipeg) TheCanadian section of the Red RiverBasin encompasses 10,224 square miles or6,543,360 acres. Forthe purpose of describingagri- culturalland use this area can be divided into three regions. The flatcentral lowland clay plain along the mainstem of the Ked River is predominantly a cerealgrain-fallow and limited pasture grazing 83 Table D.V.3: Red RiverBasin (U.S.), Land Capabilityand Present Land Use. Land Capability Class (Acres) Present Land Use I11I I1 IV v VI VI I VI11 Cropland 100 ,700 10, 532 ,400 4,131,500 1,251,800 39,100 374 ,300 32,000 - Pasture or Rangeland 2 ,000 636 ,800 726 ,100 270,40046,000 358 ,800 82 ,500 6,700 Forestland 673,300300 530,800 1,146,800 382 ,169,200700 89 ,600 3 ,100 Other Agricultural 2,700190 ,000 232 ,300 278 ,300 82 ,100 16,100251,200 17 9 ,600 - TOTAL 105,700 12 ,032,500 5,620,700 2,947,300 549,900 918 ,400 455,300 189 ,400 Water Use presentft.) Use (ac. Irrigation(private supply) 81, 962 Irrigation(public supply) 0 Livestock Use 64 ,310 Total Agricultural Water Use 146 ,272 * fromsurface and groundwater sources 85 H 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 H rn rn 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn m u3 4 m H m e m m m H 0 m a N N 3 rl 0 N m r- rl rl N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u3 4 cr) u3 m H m m m e m 3 0 4 4 m 4 4 a rl rn rl m 4 3 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 m 4 m L m m 2 r- a 4 a3 N N a rl N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl 4 4 a m H #u m m m H rl a3 m m H 4 \D N m m U a3 m .) rl rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl N rl 0 U H m m m m m H cn 0 a3 N cn h a3 N a3 rl rl m m m N N H 0 0 0 0 0 rl a a cd L-l 3a 9 2 a, a C u t4 v) G aJcd rl P (d L-lrl U 3 2 rl 30 v) #tu 0 d a UM a, 0) -4 E-c C 0 mc L4 su rd L-l 0 r3 u 22 Fr 86 Table D.V.6: Souris River Basin(U.S.): Present Agricultural Water Use.* Water Use ft.)Present Use (ac. Irrigation(private supply) 2,867 Irrigation(public supply) 10, 000 Livestock Use 5,293 Total Agricultural Water Use 18, 160 * fromsurface and groundwater sources system. A majorportion of theprovincial dairy industry focuses on this area because of its locationwith respect to Winnipeg. Limited specialized vegetablesand fruit crop production is confinedto the mainstem of the Red Riverbetween Selkirk and Ste. Agathe. A narrowbelt of smooth, sandy and loamy lacustrine and deltaic soils is locatedalong the western edge of the Red RiverValley. This belt of very good to good irrigableland, approximately ten miles wide,extends from the U.S. borderto the Assiniboine River Basin.Major crops produced are flax, corn,rapeseed, sugar beets, dry beans, dry peas, potatoes and canning crops. Productionof cereal grains is alsovery significant. A reductionin the summer fallowacreage from approximately 15 percent, common toother portions of thebasin, to 9 percent is indicativeof the trend to more intensifieduse of landin this area. The presentland use in Manitoba is summarized in Table D.V.7 by cropreporting districts. These crop districts are delineated in Figure D.V.l. The WesternDrift Prairie Uplands are locatedbetween the U.S. boundaryand the Assiniboine Basin and are dissected by the PembinaRiver Valley. The majoruse of land is cerealgrain production. This area also is characterized by a significantlyhigher proportion of marginal, unim- provedland than in the remainder of the Red Basin. The Red RiverBasin in Canada is almostexclusively a dryland farming area. Of approximately865,280 acres of land classified as potentiallyirrigable, only about 800 acres are currentlyunder irrigation. 87 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~~~ Table D.V.7: Manitoba Land Lise byCrop Districts, 1971.* ImprovedLand (Thousand Acres) Total Unimproved Total Crop District:OtherPasture Fallow Crops Acres Land Land 1 756 261 49 16 1,082 309 1,391 2 847 2 34 35 23 1,139 378 1,517 3 1,718 241 59 41 2,059 208 2,267 4 303 66 33 12 4 14 200 614 5 958 174 57 34 1,224 327 1,551 m 6 145 27 30 7 209 220 429 m 7 596 242 52 19 909 405 1,314 b 676 168 69 21 934 4 08 1,342 9 544 195 63 21 823 307 1,130 10 787 443 43 25 1,298 660 1,958 11 669 260 65 25 1,019 439 1,458 12 420 85 96 26 627 1,131 1,758 13 355 141 29 9 5 34 183 717 14 348 118 51 16 5 33 1,029 1,562 TOTAL 9,122 2,655 731 296 12,804 6,204 19,008 * Total area ofland in farms was 19,008,000 acres or 543 acres perfarm in 1971. Estimatedaverage size in 1974 was 592 acres. Improved landcomprised 67 percent of thetotal farm land in 1971, and is rising eachyear as new land is broken. A total of 357,900 acres has beenbroken and transferred from unimproved to improvedland since 1971. Source : (33) 1 I FIGURE D.P.1. MANITOBACROP REPORTING DISTRICTS 89 Most of the368 acres currently being irrigated using surface water are used for vegetable and fruit production and are confined to a narrow belt of alluvial soils along the main stem of the Red River between St. Agathe and Selkirk. Approximately 420 acres of private irrigation development using groundwater has occurred in the Winkler area. The current agricultural water use, which in the Ked River Basin in Canada amounts930 acre-feet to per year, is summarized in TableD.V.8. Table D.V.8: Red River Basin (Manitoba): Agricultural Water Use,* 1975. Present Water Water bseWater AcreageUnitsNo.Use of ft.)(Ac. Crop irrigation Crop 14 368 450 Livestock 2,000 40 Golf courses and parks 8 420 440 Total Agricultural Use Agricultural Total 930 * from surface water sources 4. Souris River (from international boundary to Assiniboine River The Manitoba portion of the Souris River Basin is approximately 3,970 square miles or1,991,780 acres. For the purpose of describing agricultural land it can be divided into three regions. The Glacial Lake Souris Region constitutes a flat of plain sandy to loamy lacustrine sediments with wide differences in the agricultural suitability of the soils. Major agricultural uses reflect these differences with emphasison crop production on good soils and rangelandon poor soils. The potential for crop productionon the good soilsis comparable to the Red River Lowlands. The Western Drift Prairie Uplands Region comprises an irregular morainic topography. This topographic pattern reduces the opportunity for diversified crop programs and a relatively high proportion of the land remains unimproved. A substantial portion of the region is utilized for livestock production. 90 The SourisRiver Valley flood plain is narrowand flat, often borderedby steeply sloping, eroded banks. Of particularimportance is thereach between the confluence with the Antler River and the community of Lauder.Significant areas of good agriculturalsoil exist here with potential forintensive crop production with or without irrigation. The SourisRiver Basin in Canada, like the Red RiverBasin, is essentially a drylandfarming area. Of the517,760 acres of potentially irrigableland, less than 100 acresare currentlybeing irrigated. Informa- tion on land use related to crop districts is shown in Table D.V.7 andon Figure U.V.1. The presentagricultural water usewhich totals 232 acre- feetannually is summarized inTable D.V.9. Table U.V.9: SourisRiver Basin (Manitoba): Agricultural Water Use, 1975.* Present Water. Water Use No.Units of Acreage Use (Ac. ft.) Crop irrigation 5 84 101 Livestock 6,500 - 131 Golf coursesand parks - Total Agricultural Total Water Use 232 * fromsurface water sources 5. AssiniboineRiver (from the Souris River to the Red River) Thissub-basin covers an area ofapproximately 2,000 square miles or1,280,000 acres. The portionsignificant to agriculture is boundedon thesouth by therugged Pembina Hills and to the north by theextensive dunedsandy plain of the Upper Assiniboine Delta. Forthe purpose of describingagricultural land it canbe divided into two regions. The periglacial loamy, lacustrinesediments region extends from Glenboro in the west toRathwell in the east. This is an area ofexcellent agricultural soils, southof the Assiniboine River, that is usedfor cereal grainsand potatoes. Livestock production in this area is minor relative tocrop production. 91 The PortagePlains Region is an alluvial lacustrine plain that extendsfrom just west ofPortage la Prairieto Poplar Point and Elie to the east. Due to its excellentagricultural soils, this area has become thecentre for highly intensified, specialized crop production over the past decade.Important crops include cereal grains,sunflowers, rapeseed, navyand black beans, dry peas, potatoes and a majorportion of the vegetable cropproduction for Manitoba. Confinement feeding of livestock is also a significant enterprise in thisregion. The expansionof livestock production in the Assiniboine River Basinhas been somewhat limitedbecause of a shortageof potable ground- water of a qualitysuitable for livestock purposes. In the past, a considerablevolume of water hasbeen withdrawn from the Assiniboine River tofill dugouts in times of lowsurface runoff. TheManitoba Depart- ment ofAgriculture is presentlyworking with producers adjacent to the river in an effort to develop a more suitablesystem of water withdrawal fromthe river for use on a year-roundbasis for livestock production. Figure D.V.l andTable D.V.7 presentinformation on land use relatedto crop districts. The currentagricultural water use,amounting to about2,000 acre-feet per year, is summarized inTable D.V.lO. Table U.V.10: Assiniboine River (Manitoba):Agricultural Water Use, 1975.* Present Water Water Use AcreageUnits No. of Use (Ac. ft.) Crop irrigation 12 1,049 1,259 L ivestock 7,250 Livestock - 146 Golfcourses and parks 5 500 601 T otal Agricultural Total Water Use 2,006 9; From surface water sources 6. LakeWinnipeg The useof water foragricultural purposes from Lake Winnipeg is of a minornature. Withdrawals are mainlyfor stockwatering as there is no irrigationin the vicinity of thelake. Land use is predominantlyfor cereal cropproduction and grazing of unimprovedwoodland areas. 92 Generallyspeaking, plentiful supplies of water forlive- stockuse are availablefrom aquifers at a depthof 50 to 100 feet. Thus, there is little likelihoodthat the need for increased volumes of water from the lake will berequired. 7. LakeManitoba LakeManitoba is bordered on its east, west andsouth shores by landscontaining soils varying widely in their productivity. Thepredomin- antland uses are cereal cropproduction and grazing. There is a substantial area ofunimproved land which is slowlybeing broken for cropping purposes. At thesouth end of the lake there is a large area ofmarsh which is basicallyreserved for wildlife habitat. However,on boththe east and west shorelines,substantial areas ofgrazing land are being used for summer pasturingof livestock. It is estimatedthat 18,000 headof cattle utilizethe lake as a sourceof water duringgrazing seasons. As grassland managementbecomes more intensive, it is anticipatedthat the carrying capacity of thegrazing areas adjacentto the lake will increase,resulting in an increase in the volumeof water withdrawnfrom the lake. (d)Future Water Use - 1985 and 2000 Withinthe time horizonsconsidered in this study, it is likely that the most significant increase in water usewithin the study area will beto satisfy potential irrigation demands. Infact, the whole GDU project is oriented to increasing agricultural production by supplyingmore irriga- tion water. Substantialacreages of irrigablesoils exist within the study area. Irrigationof these soils wouldtend tostabilize farm production andincome since the risk and uncertainty in farming operations wouldbe reducedthrough irrigation. It is recognized,however, that any develop- mentof the area's water resources wouldhave tobe justified economically. For theUnited States portionof the study area, extensiveuse wasmade of theinformation available in the SRRRB Study. In thisstudy, potentiallyirrigable lands were delineatedon the basis of existing land classificationand soils information and on the basis of economic and engineeringstudies of plans to deliver water to potentially irrigable lands.Delineation of potential irrigation development was predicatedon enhancementand stabilization of localeconomies rather than any regional assignmentof need for food and fibre production. Plansfor irrigation development as outlined in the SRRRB Study includethe delivery of water from two sources:groundwater and surface water. Groundwatersupplies would be utilized almost entirely by private irrigators. Development of groundwaterwould probably reach a plateauand thentend to decrease with time as certainaquifers become depleted. Some water users could then shift to surface water sourceswhich would become availablefrom large scale projects.Surface water supplieswould be 93 usedalmost entirely for project-type development, such as GDU, whichwould befinanced primarily by federaland state agencies. In Canada,on the basis of a reasonablerange of possibilities forirrigation development in the Souris, Red andAssiniboine Basins, neither the availability of suitable water suppliesnor the availability of poten- tiallyirrigable soils can, in themselves, be considered limiting factors tothe potential development of irrigation. Although neither the Souris Basinnor major areas within the Red RiverBasin contain sufficient quanti- ties ofsurface or groundwater to irrigate large acreages of potentially irrigableland, should economic conditions warrant, the diversion of water forirrigation within these areas is feasible (61). The rate at whichsuch developmentwould occur is dependent upon theeconomic benefits of irrigation agriculture as opposed tothe capital and operating costs of implementing privateand public irrigation. Development in all basins will undoubtedly respondto significant increases in future commodity prices.In addition, pressurefrom competing uses of lands in these areas will likely drive up thecost of land and impose an additional incentive upon thefarmer to increasehis efficiency of operation. Projected water usefor irrigation and other agricultural purposes is described by sub-basinsin the following sections. For the Canadian portionof the study area, therationale for projecting future water use forirrigation purposes is discussedin more detailin Attachment D.V.l. 1. Red, Sheyenneand Wild Rice Rivers(to international boundary) As shown onTable D.V.ll there are anestimated 1,150,000 acres Gf landwith soil and land characteristics which make them suitable for irrigation by groundand surface water methods.The projected rate of developmentpresented in this section has been adapted from information containedin the SRRRB Study. The report states thatthe projected rate ofdevelopment for large project-type irrigation systems is predicated on the belief that GDU will becompleted as plannedand will supplyadequate water for many yearsinto the future. Since this project is already authorized, it seems doubtfulthat any other large-scale project developments canbe anticipated before the year 2000. The reportfurther states that privateirrigation development can proceed at any time utilizingprimarily groundwaterresources and that once success with GDU hasbeen demonstrated, ownersand operators can be expected to move intoirrigation. For these reasons,early development of groundwater for irrigation purposes has been forecastfor the next 25 years. Table D.V.12 indicatesthe projected use of water foragricultural purposesin this sub-basin to 1985 and2000 withand without completion of GDU. Thesedata are shown ingross requirements. The tableindicates that as of 1985 morethan 280,000 acre-feetof water will berequired for agriculturalpurposes, 71 percentfor irrigation and the remainder for stockwatering. As of2000, over 340,000 acre-feetwould be required. 94 Table D.V.ll: Red River Basin (U.S.), PotentiallyIrrigable Lands. Potentially Irrigable Land Source (Acres) Surface Water NorthDakota 696,500 Sou th Dakota South 3,500 Minnesota 270,000 Sub-Total 970 ,000 Ground Water NorthDakota 122,000 Minnesota 58 ,000 Sub-Total 180,000 TOTAL 1 ,150,000 95 Table D.V.12: Red, Sheyenne and Wild Rice Rivers (U.S.): Projected Agricultural Water Use.* (WithoutGarrison) (With Garrison) Water Use Units 1985 2000 1985 2000 1985 2000 1985 Units Use Water Agriculture (rural water supplylivestock) Ac. ft. 80 ,388 91,32080,388 91,320 Agriculture (irrigation privatesupply) Ac. ft. 200,000250,000 200,000 250,000 Agriculture (irrigation public supply) Ac.supply)public ft. 0 0 38,155** 147,400** Agriculture Total Ac. ft. 280,388 341,320 318,543 488,720318,543341,320280,388 ft. Ac. Total ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ * from surface and groundwater sources ** water source is Missouri River (GDU authorized plan) These totals assume that GDU will not be completed. With GDU in place, about 320,000 acre-feet would be required annually by 1985 and about 490,000 acre-feet annually by 2000; 75 percent and81 percent respectively of these amounts will be for irrigation purposes. 2. Souris River (from confluence with the Wintering River to the international boundary) The rationale for projecting agricultural water use in the Red, Sheyenne and Wild Rice Basins applies equally to projected use in the Souris River Basin in the United States. GDU would increase the irrigated land area by approximately116,000 acres using water from the Missouri River. In addition it is estimated that there are 362,000 acres of land with soil and land characteristics which make them suitable for irrigation by surface water methods and another16,000 acres which could be irrigated using ground- water. It has been estimated that agricultural water use will increase almost 96 42,000 acre-feetannually by 1985,84 percent for irrigation. This projection doesnot include any increases in water supplydue to GDU, asthe Souris loop portionof the project will notbe in operation by1985. By 2000, projected agricultural water usein this sub-basin will amount toover 46,000 acre-feet peryear if GDU is notoperative by that time, andover 130,000 acre-feet peryear with GDU inplace. Of theseamounts, 84 percent and 94 percent, respectively, will be usedfor irrigation. Projected agricultural water use is shown inTable D.V.13. Thesedata are shown in grossrequirements. Table D.V.13: Souris River Basin(U.S.): Projected Agricultural Water Use. (WithoutGarrison) (WithGarrison) Water Use Units 1985 2000 1985 2000 Agriculture* (rural water supp ly livestock)supply 7,5166,616 7,516 6,616 Ac. ft. Agriculture** (irrigation privatesupply) Ac. ft. 25,000 29,000 25,00029 ,000 Agriculture+ (irrigation publicsupply) Ac. ft. 10, 000 10,000 10,000 95,115 Agriculture Total 131,631Ac.41,616 ft.46,516 41,616 * About50 percentof the supply comesfrom groundwater sources, remainder is surfacesupplied. ** Source: 35 percentgroundwater, 65 percent surface water. The majorsource will bethe Missouri River by 2000 (with GDU). 3. Red River(from international boundary to Lake Winnipeg) As shown in Table D.V.14, approximately865,280 acres of land in the Red River Basinin Manitoba are classified as potentially irrigable. The majorportion of this acreage occurs on the belt ofsandy lacustrine soilsalong the western edge of the Red RiverValley that extends from the 97 internationalboundary to the Assiniboine River Basin. As mentionedpre- viously,only about 400 acres ofthis land is currentlybeing irrigated. Thisconsists of some privateirrigation development in the Winkler area. Any significant development of irrigation in this area will probablytake theform of public development of surface water supplies;the probable source of irrigation water comingfrom diversion of water from either the Assini- boineor Pembina Rivers.Large dams on the Pembina River havebeen investi- gatedpreviously (57) as has a diversioncanal from the Assiniboine River and a diversioncanal from Lake of the Woods (61). Thedevelopment of privateirrigation using groundwater supplies will not likely be significant since water from thissource is verylimited. In the Western Drift Prairie Uplands a limitedpotential for private irrigation development exists on the betteralluvial soils found along the present flood plain of the Pembina RiverValley. Table D.V.14: Red River(Manitoba), Irrigation Land SuitabilityClasses*. Irrigation Class** Area (Acres) Class I (Verygood, no limitation) 48 ,640 Class I1 (Good tofair) 816,640 TOTAL I & I1 (Potentiallyirrigable) 865 ,280 Class I11 (Marginallyirrigable) 1 ,045 ,760 Class IV (Not suitablefor irrigation) 3,052,160 Unclassified 1,482,880 * Source: (30) ** Source: (7) As notedpreviously, the rationale for projecting irrigation water usein the Canadian portion of the study area is discussedin some detail in Attachment D.V.l. Foreach future time horizonconsidered, three projec- tions,low, medium andhigh, were made.Only the medium projectionhas been used in the projected agricultural water use summaryshown in Table D.V.15. AS shown in this table, agricultural water use in the Red River Basinin 98 Canada hasbeen projected to increase to 1,500 acre-feetper year by1985 and to 25,800acre-feet per year by 2000. Of theseamounts, 33 percentand 97 percent,respectively, will beused for irrigation purposes. ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Table D.V.15: Red RiverBasin (Manitoba): Projected Agricultural Water Use.* Projected Water Use (acre-feet) Water Use 1985 2000 1985 Crop Irrigation 25,000 500 Livestock 500 100 GolfCourses and Parks 500 7 00 To tal Agricultural Total Water Use 25,800 1,500 * fromsurface water sources 4. SourisRiver (from international boundary to Assiniboine River) The Souris River Basin,like the Red River Basin, is essentially a drylandfarming area. Of 517,760 acres ofpotentially irrigable land indicatedin Table D.V.16, only 84 acres are currentlyunder irrigation. Approximately500 acres ofland could be irrigated from currently available surface water supplies (61). However, previouslystudied storage projects on the Antler Riverand Gainsborough Creek (8) couldprovide enough water to irrigate an additional6,000 acres. Similar tothe procedure used for the Red River Basin,three levels offorecasts of future irrigation development for the Souris Basin were preparedfor each of the target years, 1985 and 2000. Theseprojections are discussedin detail in Attachment D.V.l. Inthe summary tableof future agricultural water usein this sub-basin, Table D.V.17, onlythe medium forecastof irrigation water usehas been included. As canbe seen from this table, agricultural water use is expectedto increase to 450 acre feet peryear by1985 and to6,400 acre-feet annually by 2000, 44 percentand 94 percent,respectively, for irrigation. 99 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Table D.V.16: SourisRiver (Manitoba), Irrigation Land Suitability Classes.* Irrigation Classes** Area (Acres) Classno good, I (Very limitations)59,517 Classfair) I1 (Good to 458,243 TOTAL I & I1 (Potentiallyirrigable)517,760 Class839,040 111irrigable) (Marginally Class IV (Notirrigation) suitable for 634,880 * Source:(30) ** Source: (7) Table D.V.17: SourisRiver Basin (Manitoba): Projected Agricultural Water Use.* Projected Water Use (acre-feet) Water Use 1985 2000 ~~ ~~ Crop Irrigation 200 6,000 Livestock 150 200 GolfCourses and Parks 100 200 Total Agricultural Use 6,400 450 * fromsurface water sources 100 5. AssiniboineRiver Basin (from the Souris River to the Red River) The AssiniboineRiver sub-basin contains almost 300,000 acres of landsuitable for crop production under irrigation as shown in Table D.V.18. A specific study of the area within a 15 to 20 mile radiusof Portage la Prairie indicatesthat 92,400 acres ofland within this area are potentiallyirrigahle (55). Currently,there is sufficient water avail- ablein the Assiniboine River, if supplemented by releases fromthe upstream Shellmouthand Rivers Reservoirs, to irrigate 60,000 acres (55). Many thousandadditional acres could be irrigated by augmentingexisting Assini- boineRiver flows through diversion of water fromother basins. A number of suchschemes, including the Lake Winnipegosis to Upper Assiniboine RiverDiversion and a diversioncanal to the Assiniboine River from Lake Manitoba(61) have already been investigated. Table D.V.18: AssiniboineRiver (Manitoba), Irrigation Land Suitability Classes. Jr Irrigation Classes** Area (Acres) Class I (Verygood, no limitations) 52,700 Class I1 (Good tofair) 246,400 TOTAL I & I1 (Potentiallyirrigable) 299,100 Class I11 (Marginallyirrigable) 180,480 Class IV (Not suitable) 800,640 ~ ~ * Source: (30) ** Source: (7) As for thepreviously mentioned sub-basins in Canada, three fore- casts ofirrigation water use were made. These are discussedin Attach- ment D.V.l. Themedium forecasthas been incorporated in Table D.V.19 which shows projectedagricultural water usein the Assiniboine River Basin. As canbe seen from the table, agricultural water useamounting to 5,975 acre- feetannually has been projected for 1985, 85 percent for irrigation. This usehas been projected to increase to 31,500 acre-feetper year by 2000, 95 percentfor irrigation. 101 Table D.V.19: AssiniboineRiver Basin: Projected Agricultural Water Use.* Projected Water Use (acre-feet) Water Use 1985 2000 Crop Irrigation 5 ,000 30 ,000 Livestock 175 300 G olf Courses and Parks 800 1,200 800 Parks and Courses Golf Total Agricultural Use 5 ,975 31, 500 * fromsurface water sources 6. LakeWinnipeg As mentionedpreviously, the present use of water fromLake Winnipeg foragricultural purposes is of a minornature. Withdrawals are primarilyfor livestockuse as there is currently no irrigation in the vicinity of the lake. It is unlikelythat this situation will changewithin the futures consideredin this report. As no irrigationusing water fromthis source is anticipated prior to the year 2000and as water forlivestock purposes can be obtainedfrom ample supplies of readily available groundwater, there is little likelihoodthat the withdrawal of increased volumes of water fromthe lake will berequired for agriculturalpurposes. 7. LakeManitoba Substantial areas ofgrazing land adjacent to Lake Manitoba are currentlybeing used for summer pasturingof livestock. As grassland managementbecomes more intensive it is anticipatedthat the carrying capacity of thegrazing areas adjacentto the lake will increase,resulting in an increasein the volumeof water withdrawnfrom the lake. Annual withdrawals havebeen forcast to reach 430 acre feet by1985 and 730 acre feet by2000. At thepresent time, no water is beingwithdrawn from Lake Manitoba forirrigation purposes. In the future, if economicconditions warranted, a sizeable portion of the highly productive irrigable soils located north and 102 east of Portage la Prairie could be irrigated. However, since the Assiniboine River is a more likely source of water supply, potential uses of this nature have been addressed in the section dealing with projected agricultural use in the Assiniboine River Basin. (e) Identification of Important Water Quality Parameters for Agricultural Use (i) Water for Irrigation Purposes Generally, the allowable qualityof an irrigation water is closely tied to the soils being irrigated, the crops being cultivated, and the drainage and crop management employed by the farmer. Water quality standards per se are not applied in appraising the useabilityof water for irrigation. "Its useability depends on what can be done with the water if applieda given to soil under a particular set of circumstances. The successful long-term use of any irrigation water depends moreon rainfall, leaching, irrigation water management, salt tolerance of crops, and soil management practices uponthan water quality itself" (42). The determination of the suitability of water involves integrating crop, land and water factors as discussed previously under methodology, section (b). In this process, land classification surveys are utilized to delineate land classes that would favourably respond to a water supply of a given quality. This selection of land as a potential part of an irrigation development is then tested as to feasibility by application of plan formulation criteria. To give a general rangeof irrigation water quality that may be used in evaluating Souris, Assiniboine, and Red River water for irrigation (both with and withoutGDU), Tables D.V.20 and D.V.21 outline parametric values for irrigation. Table D.V.20 shows the relative salt tolerances of agricultural crops that may be expected in those basins(39). Table D.V.21 contains recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements for irrigation water(45). (ii) Livestock and Poultry Water Supply In addition to water for irrigation, the qualityof water for livestock and poultry must be considered in studying watersof the Souris, Assiniboine, and Red rivers for agricultural needs. TableD.V.22 shows gen- eral salinity tolerances for livestock and poultry(47), and Table D.V.23 shows recommended maximum levels of toxic substances in drinking for water livestock and poultry (47). It should be noted that the water quality criteria data for irrigation, livestock, and poultry water supplies are all of United States origin. There are no comparable data available for Canada. For this study, these data are considered adequate as guides for evaluating the effects of water qualityon Canadian water uses. 103 Table D.V.20: Salt Tolerances of Agricultural Cropd). Declineper Salinityik at UnitIncrease Initial Yield Salinity in Salt Decline Beyond ThresholdTolerance Crop (b (a> 1 Rating ** mmho / cm % mmho/cm Alfalfa Medicago sativa 2.0 7.3 MS Barley(grain>L) Hordeum vulgare 8.0 5.0 'I Bean (field) Phaseolusvulgaris 1.0 19 S Beet , garde2) Beta vulgaris 4.0 9.0 MT Bean (broadbean) Vicia faba 1.6 9.6 M Broccoli Brassica oleracea2.8 9.2 MT italica Cabbage Brassica oleracea 1.8 9.7 MS capitata Carrot Daucus carota 1.0 14 S Clover,alsike, ladino, red,strawberry Trifolium spp. 1.5 12 MS Corn (forage) Zea mays 1.8 7.4 MS Corn (grain) Zea mays 1.7 12 MS Corn (sweet) Zea mavs 1.7 12 MS Continued 104 Table D.V.20 continued. % Yield Decline per Salinity* at UnitIncrease Initial Yield in Salinity Salt Decline Beyond Threshold Tolerance Crop (a) (b 1 Rating ** mho 1cm % mmho/cm Cucumber Cucumis sativus 2.5 13 MS Fescue,tall Festucaelatior 3.9 5.3 MT Flax Linum usitatissimum 1.7 12 MS Lettuce Lactuca sativa 1.3 13 MS Onion Alliumcepa 1.2 16 S Orchardgrass Dactylisglomerata 1.5 6.2 MS Pepper Capsicum frutescens 1.5 .4 MS Potato Solanumtuberosum 1.7 12 MS Radish Raphanus sativus 1.2 13 MS Raspbery Rubus idaeus - S Rice, paddyl) Oryza sativa 3.0 12 MS Ryegrass,perennial Lolium perenne 5.6 7.6 MT Sorghum Sorghum bicolor - MS Spinach Spinaciaoleracea2.0 7.6 MS Continued 105 Table D.V.20 continued. Decline per Salinity" at Unit Increase Initial Yield in Salinity Salt Decline Beyond Threshold Tolerance Crop (a> (b Rating ** mmho / cm % mmholcm Strawberry Fragaria spp. 1.0 33 S Sugarbeet21 Beta vulgaris 7.0 5.9 T Timothy Phlem pratense - MS Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum 2.5 9.9 MS Trefoil, Birdsfoot Narrowleaf?) L. corniculatus tenuifolius 5.0 10 MT Wheat 1, 6) " Triticum aestivum 6.0 7.1 MT Wheatgrass, crested Agropyrondesertorum 3.5 4.0 MT Wheatgrass, fairway A. cristatum 7.5 6.9 T Wheatgrass, slender A. trachycaulum Wheatgrass, tall Agropyronelongatum 7.5 4.2 T Wildrye , Altai Elymus angustus Trin. - - T Wildrye, Bearless E. triticoides 2.7 6.0 MT Wildrye, Russian E. junceus - - T Continued 106 Table D.V.20 continued. ~~ ~ * Salinityexpressed as ECe in mmho/cm at 25C. Less tolerantduring emergence and seedling stage, EC, shouldnot exceed 4 or 5 mmho/cm. Sensitiveduring germination. ECe shouldnot exceed 3 mho/cmfor beet andsugarbeet. Average of severalvarieties. Suwanneeand Coatal are about 20 percent more tolerantand Common andGreenfield are about 20 percent less tolerantthan the average. Average forBoer, Wilman,Sand andWeeping varieties. Lehman appears about 50 percent more tolerant. Broadleafbirdsfoot trefoil appears to be less tolerantthan narrowleaf. Tolerance data may not apply to new semi-dwarf varieties. Salt ToleranceRating symbols: MS = moderately sensitive T = tolerant S = sensitive MT = moderately tolerant Source : (39) 107 Table D.V.21: Recommended Maximum Concentrations of Trace Elements in Irrigation Waters. ~~ Element For Waters Used For Use Up To 20 Continuously On Years On Fine All Soil Textured Soils Of pH 6.0 To 8.5 mgl1 Aluminum 5.0 20.0 Arsenic 0.10 2.0 Beryllium 0.10 0.50 Boron 0.75 2.0-10.0 Cadmium 0.010 0.050 Chromium .10 1.0 Cobalt .050 5.0 Copper 0.20 5.0 Fluoride 1.0 15.0 Iron 5.0 20.0 Lead 5.0 10.0 Lithium 2.G 2.5-b Manganese 0.20 10.0 Molybdenum 0.010 0.05E Nickel 0.20 2.0 Selenium 0.020 0.020 Vanadium 0.10 1.0 Zinc 2.0 10.0 -a These levels will normally not adversely affect plants orNo soils. data available for mercury, silver, tin, titanium, tungsten. -b Recommended maximum concentration for irrigating citrus0.075 ismg/l. -c For only acid fine texturedsoils or acid soils with relatively high iron oxide contents. Source: (45) 108 ~ ~ - - Table D.V.22: A Guide tothe Use ofSaline Waters forLivestock and Poultry. TDS Concentration (mg/l> Comment Less than 1,000 These waters have a relatively low level of salinity andshould present no seriousburden to any class of livestock or poultry. 1,000-2,999 Thesewaters should be satisfactory for all classes of livestockand poultry. They may causetemporary andmild diarrhea in livestock not accustomed to them orwatery droppings in poultry (expecially at thehigher levels), but should not affect their health or performance. 3,000-4,999 These waters shouldbe satisfactory for livestock, althoughthey might very possibly cause temporary diarrhea or be refused at first by animals not accustomed to them.They are poor waters forpoultry, oftencausing watery feces and (at the higher levels ofsalinity) increased mortality and decreased growth, especiallyin turkeys. 5,000-6,999 These waters canbe used with reasonable safety for dairyand beef cattle, sheep,swine, and horses. It may be well toavoid the use of thoseapproaching the higher levels forpregnant or lactating animals. They are notacceptable waters forpoultry, almost always causing some typeof problem, especially near the upper limit, wherereduced growth and production or increased mortality will probablyoccur. 7,000-10,000 These waters are unfit for poultry and probably for swine.Considerable risk may existin using them for pregnantor lactating cows,horses, sheep, the young ofthese species, or for any animals subjected to heavyheat stress or water loss. In general,their useshould be avoided, although older ruminants, horses,and even poultry and swine may subsist on them for long periodsof time underconditions of low stress. More than 10,000 The riskswith these highly saline waters are so great thatthey cannot be recommended foruse under any conditions. * Source: (47) 109 Table D.V.23: Recommended Limits of Concentrationof Some Potentially Toxic Substances in Drinking Water for Livestock and Poultry. I tem Safe Upper Limit of Concentration (mg/l) Arsenic 0.2 Barium Not establisheda Cadmium 0.05 Chromium 1.0 Cobalt 1.0 Copper 0.5 Cyanide Not establisheda Fluoride 2.0 Iron Not establisheda Lead 0.1 Manganese Not establisheda Mercury 0.010 Molybdenum Not establisheda Nickel 1.0 Nitrate - N 100. Nitrite - N 10. Salinity See TableD.V.22 Vanadium 0.1 Zinc 25.0 a No limit is given for a number of elements since experimental data available are not sufficient to make definite recommendations. Source: (47) 110 (f)Effects of Current Water Qualityand Quantity on Currentand Future Agricultural Use in Canada (i)Current and Future Flooding Problems Agriculturalpursuits along the Red, Assiniboineand Souris rivers are at times impairedby flooding. Along the Red River,overbank flow at Emerson beginsat approximately 30,000 cfs. Thechannel capacity near St. Jean is approximately40,000 cfs and increases as the river progresses down- stream to Winnipeg.Flows in excess ofchannel capacity, generally the resultof spring runoff, can result in damages tocrops as a resultof delays inseeding. Based on ananalysis of historic data, once in ten years on the average,flows of up to 47,000 cfs can be expected at Emerson. Historically, thishas resulted in overbank flow for periods of up to 25 days. As on the Red River,flooding along the Assiniboine River occurs onlyduring periods of relatively high flow, generally during the spring run- offperiod. The channelcapacity of theAssiniboine River between its cdn- fluencewith the Souris River and Portage la Prairie is approximately20,000 cfs, a flowwhich could be expected once in six years on theaverage. In thisreach of the River, peakdischarges between 26,000 cfs and 32,000 cfs, floods having frequenciesof occurrence of 10 percentand six percent respectively, cause floodingof from 16,000 to 27,000 acres forperiods of up to two orthree weeks.Below Portage la Prairie,localized flooding begins at approximately 8,000 cfs,with major flooding occurring if dikes are overtopped at approxi- mately20,000 cfs. With the Portage Diversion operated for flood control, majorflooding downstream of Portage la Prairie wouldoccur when flows immediatelyupstream of the Diversion exceed about 43,000 cfs, a flowwhich couldbe expected once in 60 years on theaverage. The SourisRiver Valley from the international boundary to Souris is proneto flooding. Channel capacities range from about 150 cfs at the boundary toapproximately 2,500 cfs near Souris. In 1969,the maximum flood on recordfor the historic period from 1912 to 1975, a totalof 18,100 acres ofvalley land were inundated.Preliminary information for 1976 in- dicatesthat peak discharges along the Souris River exceededthose recorded in1969 by almost 100 percent(113). For example, the peak discharge at Melita during1969 was 10,800 cfs.Provisional data indicate that in 1976 thepeak discharge at Melita was 19,600cfs. In 1969,and in several years since, acres couldnot be planted because of extended flooding. Averageannual flooding along the Souris River, based on theperiod from1936 to1974, has amounted to about 4,400 acres. Theaverage annual agri- cultural damage associatedwith this flooding is estimated at $79,000.The six miles ofthe Souris River from theinternational boundary to Provincial Road 251 is thereach of the River most frequently flooded. Based on the historicperiod from 1936 to 1974, an average of 1,000 acres are annually inundated. In the two outof every three years in which flooding occurs, the averageduration Of flooding1 is 77 days. In comparison,the average annual 1 In thissection duration of flooding refers to the numberof days that overbank flow occurs. It is notrelated to a specificacreage. 111 duration of flooding (all years) is 64 days. The reach is alsosubject to flooding as theresult of summer rainstorms. On theaverage, flooding in the late summer occursin about four out of ten years in thisreach. The mostextensive flooding is felt in the reach ofthe Souris River near Lauder.Flooding occurs in four out of ten years in this reach. An average of 3,100acres are floodedduring these flood years. Inflood years, channel capacity of 1,100 cfs is exceededfor an average of 64 days.If all yearsduring the period from 1936 to 1974 are considered, includingthose in which no flooding was experienced,the average annual durationof flooding in this reach has been 26 days. On theaverage, about1,600 acres are floodedannually. Historicflooding problems due to high water levels onLakes Winnipegand Manitoba have not been addressed in this report since the increase in level that would occur as a result of returnflows from GDU will beinsignificant. (ii)Irrigation Privateirrigation development in the Souris River Basin has beenlimited by thelack of an assured water supply,both from surface and groundwatersources. With the intricate relationship that exists between agriculturaleconomics, available water supply,crop saleability, national and provincialpolicies, etc., it was impossibleto quantify the number of irrigated acres foregonebecause of limited water supply.Along the Souris River in Canada, it hasbeen stated previously that only about 500 acres of landcould be irrigated from current surface water supplies. To date, less than100 acres are beingirrigated. However, storage possibilities exist that would allowthe irrigation (public supply) ofup to 6,000 acresof land along the Souris River (8). Forthis reason, irrigationin this area cannotbe considered to be a foregoneuse. As well, to the extent that water fromthe main stem ofthe Red andAssiniboine rivers is withdrawn,irrigation in these areas hasnot been a foregoneuse. Currentquality of surface water sources in thestudy area is adequatefor the irrigation of crops of significance to Manitoba's agriculture. (iii) Livestock and Poultry Currentquality and quantity of surface water sources in the study area is adequate for use by livestock andpoultry. (g)Effects of GDU onAgricultural Water Uses 1. Red River (frominternational boundary to LakeWinnipeg) An analysisof present and projectedconcentrations of TDS and present andprojected values of the sodiumadsorption ratio (SAR) forthe 112 Red River is presentedin Tables D.V.24 and D.V.25. Basedon thisanalysis and theuse criteria outlinedpreviously, neither projected TDS concentra- tions nor projected values of the sodium absorption ratio will adversely affectcurrently irrigated crops or crops of significance to Manitoba's agriculture,indicated in Tables D.V.l and D.V.2. Minimum leachingfractions required for successful irrigation in the Red River Basin are shown inTables D.V.26 and D.V.27. Insofar as theuse of water forlivestock and poultry purposes is concerned,return flowsfrom GDU will have negligible effects. The increased flow in the Red River, whichwould result fromthe additionof GDU returnflows, could provide irrigation opportunities in the Red RiverValley. It is estimatedthat approximately 1,900 acres couldbe irrigatedusing this water. It mustbe noted, however, that the demand for this water may notexist. The projecteduse of water for irrigation in the Red River Basin,which has been outlined earlier in this report, is confined to the western portion of the valley well away fromthe mainstem of the Red River. No otheragricultural effects have been identified in this sub- basin. 2. Souris River (frominternational boundary to Assiniboine River) An analysisof present and projected concentrations of TDS and presentand projected SAR valuesfor the Souris River is shown in Table D.V.28. Table D.V.29 shows the minimum leachingfractions associated with no decrease in yield of salt-sensitive crops using the maximum anticipated salinity concentration(equilibrium conditions) expected to occur in Souris River streamflowwith development of GDU. Othercrops are more salt tolerantand would notbe affected. Afterequilibrium has been established following development of GDU, there will be little or no effect upon irrigatedcrops in Manitoba from usingSouris River water forirrigation. The onlycrops which have leachingfractions which exceed normal losses due to deep percolation are carrots,beans, field beans, and onions. For these very salt sensitive crops, it may benecessary to apply up to 10 percent more water to insure properleaching and no yield reduction. This analysis assumes an irrigation efficiencyof 75 percent, 10 percentdrift loss orsurface runoff, and 15 percentdeep percolation. This irrigation efficiency is based upon large- blockirrigation and management techniques similar to those employedby the GDU. Leachingfractions of the remaining crops would be satisfied by thisdeep percolation. There are no currentor future specific major ion effects asso- ciatedwith use of Souris River streamflowfor irrigation, based on available data.Their individual effects are additivein terms oftheir effect on osmoticpotential of the soil solution, or in other words, only TDS is of concern. 113 Table D.V.24: TDS and SAR Values, Red River at Emerson. Month Historic Period Peak Impact Period Equilibrium Period ~ ~~~ Median Best Estimate TD S % Best Estimate I TDS % Diff . Increase over TDS SAR TDS ITD S Present Present Jan. 348 0.8 385 0.8 37 11 369 6 Feb . 0.6 303338 0.7 35 12 324 21 7 Mar. 332 0.7 350 0.7 18 5 343 0.6 3 P 2 P April 310 0.7 312 0.7 2 1 312 1 3 WY 383 0.7 390 0.7 7 2 388 0.7 1 June 384 0.7 395 0.7 11 3 392 0.8 8 2 July 371 0.8 392 0.8 21 6 386 0.8 15 4 Aug . 378 0.9 426 0.9 48 13 412 1.0 34 9 Sept. 352 0.9 402 0.9 50 14 387 1.0 35 10 Oct. 355 0.8 392 0.9 37 10 378 0.9 23 6 Nov . 404 0.9 431 0.9 27 7 418 1.0 14 3 Dec. 401 0.9 437 0.9 36 9 420 0.9 19 5 I I I ~~ ~ Table D.V.25: TDS and SAR Values, Red River at Selkirk. Month Historic Period T PeakImpact Period Equilibrium Period Median Best Estimate TD S % Best Estimate TDS % Uif f . Increase t Diff. Increase i over over over over TD S SAR TD S SAR Present Present TDS SAR Present Present Jan. 437 1.3 490 1.3 53 12 472 1.4 35 8 Feb . 449 1.3 495 1.4 46 10 481 1.4 32 7 Mar. 381 1.0 413 1.0 32 8 404 1.0 23 6 April 248 0.6 251 0.6 3 1 251 0.6 3 1 P w wl 363 0. b 372 0.8 9 2 371 0.8 8 2 June 366 0.8 38 4 0.8 18 5 381 0.9 15 4 July 376 1.2 400 1.2 24 6 397 1.2 21 6 Aug . 450 1.2 504 1.3 54 12 494 1.4 44 10 Sept. 403 1.3 480 1.3 77 19 466 1.5 63 16 Oct. 406 1.2 459 1.2 53 13 44 7 1.3 41 10 Nov . 496 1.5 5 36 1.5 40 8 521 1.5 25 5 Dec . 523 1.6 571 1.6 48 9 553 1.7 30 6 Table D.V.26: Leaching Fractions: Red River at Emerson, Manitoba Minimum leaching fraction associated with maintenanceof specified salinity levels in the active root zone using the maximum anticipated salinity concentration to occur under postproject equilibrium conditions. * ECe (mmhos / cm) Presently Irrigated Salinity at Yield Leaching Crops Decline Threshold Fraction Carrots 1.0 0.12 Onion 1.2 0.10 Cole 1.8 0.06 Celery No data Parsnip No data Turnip No data Potato 1.7 0.07 Small Fruit 1.5 0.08 Nursery No data Other Crops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.12 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.12 Clover 1.5 0.08 Pepper 1.5 0.08 Lettuce 1.3 0.09 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.08 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.07 Orchard Grass 1.5 0.08 Tomato 2.5 0.04 Broccoli 2.8 0.04 Flax 1.7 0.07 Broad Bean 1.6 0.07 Alfalfa 2.0 0.08 Wild Rye 2.7 0.04 Wheat 6.0 0.02 * See Attachment D.V.4 for derivationof weighted irrigation and rainfall electroconductivity, EC (iw+rf). 116 ~~ ~ Table D.V.27: Leaching Fractions: Red River at Selkirk, Manitoba Minimum leaching fraction associated with maintenance of specified salinity levels in the active root zone using the maximum anticipated salinity concentrations to occur under postproject equilibrium conditions.* ECe (mmhos/ cm) Presently Irrigated SalinityYieldLeaching at Decline ThresholdDeclineFraction Carrots 1.0 0.12 Onion 1.2 0.10 Cole 1.8 0.06 Celery No data Par snip No data Turnip No data Potato 1.7 0.07 Small Fruit 1.5 0.08 Nursery No data Other Crops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.12 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.12 Clover 1.5 0.08 Pepper 1.5 0.08 Lettuce 1.3 0.09 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.08 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.07 Orchard Grass 1.5 0.08 2.5 0.04Tomato 2.5 2.8 0.04Broccoli 2.8 Flax 1.7 0.07 Broad Bean 1.6 0.07 Alfalfa 2.0 0.07 Wild Rye 2.7 0.04 Wheat 6.0 0.02 * See attachment D.V.4 for derivationof weighted irrigation and rainfall electroconductivity, EC (iw+rf). 117 Table D.V.28: TDS and SAR Values,Souris River near Westhope, North Dakota Month HistoricPeriod T Equilibrium Period Median Best Estimate TDS % Best Estimate TDS % Dif f . Increase Dif f . Increase T over over over over TDS SAR TD S SAR Present Present TD S SAR Present Present Jan. 1295 4.2 1425 2.5 130 10 1200 3.2 -7 7 " Feb . 1560 4.0 1425 2.3 -135 " 1198 3.0 -362 " Mar. 483 2.2 1289 2.2 806 167 108 7 2.8 604 125 April 390 2.1 533 2.1 143 37 515 2.3 125 32 co May 429 2.5 624 2.3 195 45 605 2.5 176 41 June 563 2.5 897 2.2 334 59 845 2.7 282 50 July 546 2.8 995 2.2 449 82 917 2.9 371 68 Aug . 495 3.3 1183 2.2 688 139 1056 2.9 561 113 Sep t . 531 3.3 1193 2.2 662 125 1063 2.9 532 100 Oct. 725 3.1 1352 2.4 627 86 1157 3.1 432 60 hov. 702 3.3 1270 2.4 568 81 1003 3.0 301 43 Dec . 937 3.3 1450 2.3 513 55 1196 3.0 259 28 Table D.V.29: LeachingFractions: Souris River near Westhope, North Dakota Minimum leaching fraction associated with maintenance of specified salinity levels in the active root zone using the maximum anticipated salinityconcentration to occur under postproject equilibrium conditions.* ECe (mmhos / cm) PresentlyIrrigated Salinity at LeachingYield Crops ThresholdDeclineFraction Carrots 1.0 0.25 Onion 1.2 0.20 Cole 1.8 0.12 Celery No data Parsnip No data Turnip No data Potato 1.7 0.13 Small Fruit 1.5 0.15 Nursery No data OtherCrops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.25 Beans(Field) 1.0 0.25 Clover 1.5 0.15 Pepper 1.5 0.15 Lettuce 1.3 0.18 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.15 SweetCorn 1.7 0.13 Orchard Grass 1.5 0.15 Tomato 2.5 0.09 Broccoli 2.8 0.07 Flax 1.7 0.13 BroadBean 1.6 0.14 Alfalfa 2.0 0.14 Wild Rye 2.7 0.07 Wheat 6.0 0.03 * See attachment D.V.4 forderivation of weighted irrigation and rainfall electroconductivity, EC (iw+rf). 119 Duri-ng thepeak leaching period, there should not and probably will not be any significant reductions in yields associated with using Souris River water forirrigation. The maximum concentrationsfor equi- libriumconditions used in the analysis discussed previously are actually higherthan the best estimate levelsunder peak leaching conditions. Due to relatively high sulfate levels, the use of water for livestockpurposes could result intemporary intestinal disorders in livestock. As well, there is some evidenceto indicate that the use of waters withthese high sulfate levels could also cause reduced growth rates in youngpigs. Evaluations of TDS andtrace elements in post-project streamflows show negligible effects on use of the water for livestock and poultryconsumption. However,no definiteguidelines exist forsub-lethal toxiceffects of nitrate-nitrite (105). It is not known ifabortion in cows will result fromthe 20 mg/l to 30 mg/lconcentrations which could occurin the Souris River. It is known that numerous deleteriouseffects in livestock have been associated with doses of nitrate-nitrite in the 10 mg/lto 100 mg/lrange. It hasbeen suggested that there is no definite cut-offpoint or toxic level but that rather there is a gradualincrease in negative effects as the nitrate-nitrite rises. Increasedflow volumes in the Souris River, as a result of GDU, could potentially have both negative and positive effects on agriculture. The negativeeffects are relatedto the increased flooding that can be expected to result fromthe addition of GDU returnflows; the positive effects to the additional water that may be available for irrigation. The addition of GDU returnflows would result in additional flood damage to agricultural lands along the Souris River fromthe international boundaryto the Town of Souris. The annualincremental damage is estimated at approximately$9,600. Of thisincrease, about $5,900 would beto cultivated lands andapproximately $3,700 wouldbe topasture or hay lands. Usingan economic multiplier of 2.5 (112) total primary and secondary damages are estimatedto be $24,000 annually. In addition, the potential increasein frequency of flooding could cause an alteration in existing grasslandvari-eties. Historically, the reach of the river between the internationalboundary and Coulter experienced flooding in 26 of the39 yearsfrom 1936 to 1974.With the addition of GDU returnflows, some flooding wouldhave been experienced in every one of the 39 years.This increasein flood frequency would tend to create a moreflood resistent grasslandand possibly one of less value.Agricultural damages due to flooding are discussedin more detailin Attachment D.V.5. The Engineering Committeehas determined that incremental flood damage dueto GDU could beeliminated by increasingthe channel capacity of the Souris River at a cost of$5,800,000 (28). Developmentof GDU couldalso yield additional flows which could beused for irrigation along the Souris River. Additionalflows in the SourisRiver c.ould potentially afford an opportunity to develop approxi- mately 5,200 acresof irrigable land in the Souris River Valley (Attachment D.V.6).However, thispotential can only be realized if the additional water accruingto the Souris River as a result of GDU canbe considered to be a dependableor firm supply. 120 The currentinterim agreement regarding the apportionment of Souris River water betweenManitoba and North Dakota, provides that Manitoba shall receive a guaranteed rate offlow of 20 cfs during the May to Septemberperiod except during periods of severe drought. Tenta- tivedrought criteria established by theInternational Souris River Board of Control limit releases toManitoba during this period to 10 cfs or to suchflows as may bepracticable. Until this apportionment agreement is amended toreflect the additional flows that would accrueto the Souris River as a result of GDU, suchflows cannot be considered firm. However, ifthe apportionment agreement is amended to reflectthese additional flows,the 5,200 acres, previously noted, could be irrigated. No attempt hasbeen made to quantify potential economic benefits to irrigation. No other agricultural effects have been identified in this sub-basin. 3.Assiniboine River (from Souris River to Red River) Consideringthe above analysis of Souris River streamflows under GDU conditions, it appearsthat adverse effects on crops irrigated withAssiniboine River water followingdevelopment of the project will notbe significant (Tables D.V.30 andD.V.31). Any minoryield decreases insensitive crops could be prevented by applying a small amount of additional water or by irrigating more frequently. Due to the relatively high sulfate levels which would result from GDU returnflows, livestock could experience minor temporary intes- tinaldisorders during certain months of theyear. Evaluations of other elements of GDU return flows show negligibleeffects from consumption of post-projectstreamflows. Insofar as increasedflow volumes due to theaddition of GDU returnflows are concerned, no adverseor beneficial effectshave been identified. 4. Lake WinniDee andLake Manitoba The use of water fromthese sources for agricultural purposes Will beunaffected by GDU. 121 Table D.V.30: TDS and SAR Values,Assiniboine near Portage La Prairie. Month HistoricPeriod PeakImpact Period Equilibrium Period Median Best Estimate TDS % Best Estimate TD S % Dif f . Increase Dif f . Increase over over over over TD S SAR TDS SAR Present Present TD S SAR Present Present Jan. 1.4 626 771 1.5 145 23 7 30 1.7 104 17 Feb. 1.2 610 7 37 1.4 127 21 7 04 1.5 94 15 Mar. 0.9 537 622 1.1 85 16 602 65 1.2 12 F April 35 7 0.9 373 1.0 16 4 371 1.0 14 4 N h) May 453 1.1 478 1.2 25 6 476 1.2 23 5 June 5 31 1.3 573 1.4 42 8 569 1.4 38 7 July1.5 520 597 1.5 77 15 587 1.7 67 13 Aug . 506 1.5 672 1.7 166 33 649 1.9 143 28 Sep t . 513 1.5 692 1.7 179 35 667 1.9 154 30 Oct. 503 1.6 65 9 1.7 156 31 633 1.9 130 26 Nov. 1.4 553 654 1.6 101 18 626 1.7 73 13 Dec. 626 1.1 782 1.4 156 25 737 1.5 111 18 Table D.V.31: LeachingFractions: Assiniboine River at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Minimum leaching fraction associated with maintenance of specific salinity levels in the active rootzone using the maximum anticipated salinityconcentration to occur under postproject equilibrium conditions." ECe (mhos/cm) PresentlyIrrigatedSalinity Leachingat Yield C rops Decline Threshold Fraction Threshold Decline Crops Carrots 1.0 0.18 Onion 1.2 0.15 Cole 1.8 0.09 Celery No data Parsnip No data Turnip No data Potato 1.7 0.10 Small Fruit 1.5 0.11 Nursery No data OtherCrops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.18 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.18 Clover 1.5 0.11 Pepper 1.5 0.11 Lettuce 1.3 0.13 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.11 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.10 OrchardGrass 1.5 0.11 Tomato 2.5 0.06 Broccoli 2.8 0.06 Flax 1.7 1.10 Broad Bean 1.6 0.11 Alfalfa 2.0 0.10 Wild Rye 2.7 0.06 Wheat 6.0 0.03 9~ See Attachment D.V.4 forderivation of weighted irrigated and rainfall electroconductivity, EC (iw+rf). 123 VI. RURAL DOMESTIC WATER USE (a) Introduction Rural domestic use includes useby farms, Indian reserves and other rural populations and settlements without municipal distribution systems. The use is describedby area: the Red, Souris and Assiniboine rivers and Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba. (b) Methodology The information contained in this report is the best available regarding present and potential use of water for rural domestic purposes in the area likely to be affected by GDU. For the United States portionof the study area, the primary source of information was the SRRRB (64).Report Where available, updated information made available by the Upper Missippi. River Basin Study Office wasused, In addition, data generated for this area by other state and federal agencies were used where applicable. For the Canadian portion of the studyarea, current rural domestic use was determined largely through personal contact with officialsof, and users known to, the Manitoba Departments of Agriculture and of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management. As well, the Canada Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development co-operated with the Committee by providing data on water uses by Indian bands in the study area and by preparing and distributing an information sheet and questionnaire to of each the bands. The results of this questionnaire are summarized in Attachment D.VI.3. Projections of future use were largely basedon information supplied by the same sources. The source of supply for rural domestic water uses summarized in Table D.Vl.1 and discussed in detail in Attachment D.Vl.1 is surface water. In the absence of any evidence that the water quality of the tributaries to the Red, Souris and Assiniboine rivers will be adversely affected by return flows from GDU, only withdrawals from the main stems of these rivers have been considered. Also, because at this time the effects of return flows from GDU on groundwater sources in the study area are considered to be negligible, domestic use from these sources is reported separately in Attachment D.VI.2. The uses reported in Attachment D.VI.2 are largely those which occur within an area five milesfrom either side of the main stems of the Souris, Red and Assiniboine rivers and five miles from the shorelines of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba. Per capita consumption in the study area has generally been estimated at 42 imperial gallons per day (IGPD). Projections of water use are based on projected populations to1985 and 2000. It has been estimated that per capita use will increase to53 IGPD by 2000. It has also been estimated that the percentage of rural domestic users without water systems will decrease by 50 percent by 2000. 124 In determiningwhat effect return flows from GDU wouldhave on ruraldomestic water usein the Canadian portion of the study area, water qualitydata (24) forpre-project and post-project conditions were analyzedand comparisons were made betweenpost-project and historic concentrationsfor each parameter. Those parameters showingno significant increasein concentration were excludedfrom further consideration. The hngineeringCommittee was askedto determine the cost of suitable treat- ment facilitiesto provide water of pre-GDU quality.Costs were estimated on thebasis of providing a reverseosmosis unit at each site forthe pur- poseof reducing sulfate concentrations to pre-GDU levels (28). As describedin Chapter 111, this formof treatment would reduce other para- meters to less than pre-GllU concentrations. (c) Current Water Use Current water usefrom surface water sourcesfor rural domestic purposesin the study area is summarized inTable D.Vl.1 anddetailed in Attachment D.Vl.1. Estimates ofcurrent groundwater use are summarized in Attachmentll.Vl.2. Table D.Vl.1 shows thatthere is nodocumented use in theUnited States portion of the study area norfrom the Souris River in Canada.Approximately 650 IGPD are withdrawnfrom the Red Riverfor rural domesticpurposes. Current use from the Assiniboine River is substantially greaterthan that from the Red River,amounting to approximately 36,000 IGPD. Basedupon availableinformation, use of water fromLakes Winnipeg andManitoba for rural domestic purposes is mainlyby residents of Indian Reserves.This use amounts to approximately 7,700 IGPD fromLake Winnipeg (southbasin) and 33,500 IGPD fromLake Manitoba (south of the Narrows). Furtherinfo-rmation with respect tothe Indian reserves is givenin AttachmentD.VI.3. Rural domestic use from the north basin of LakeWinnipeg andfrom the northern portion of Lake Manitoba has not been considered dueto the absence of any evidence that the chemical quality of these waters will beadversely affected by returnflows from GDU. (d) Future Water Use Future water usefor rural domestic purposes in the study area is summarized inTable D.VI.1. Substantialincreases in rural domestic water use are projectedonly for the southern portions of LakesWinnipeg and Manitobawhere withdrawals are projectedto increase to 28,000 IGPD from LakeWinnipeg and to63,000 IGPD fromLake Manitoba by 1985. By 2000, thisuse is expectedto increase further to 38,000 IGPD fromLake Winnipeg and to 150,000 IGPD fromLake Manitoba. (e)Identification of Important Water Quality Parameter2 forRural Domestic Use The constituent levels that limit theuse of water for rural domes- tic purposes are similar tothose which affect its usefor municipal purposes 125 Table U.VI.1: Rural Uomestic Water Use in Canada andU.S. from Surface Water Sources. 1975 TOTAL 1985 TOTAL 2000 TOTAL WITHDRAWAL WITHDRAWAL WITHDRAWAL IGPD* IGPD* IGPD* A. Red River, Sheyenne, and Wild Rice rivers (to Canadian1L.S. border) NIL NIL NIL B. Ked River (from Canadian1U.S. border to Lake Winnipeg) Lake to 750 650 850 C. Souris River (from Wintering River to Canadian1U.S. border) NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL Canadian1U.S.border) U. Souris River (from Canadian1U.S. border Assiniboine River) NIL NIL NIL NIL toNIL Assiniboine River) E. Assiniboine River (from Souris to Red River) Red 36,000 41,000 50,000 F. Lake Winnipeg (South Easin) (South 7,700 28,000 38,000 G. Lake Fianitoba (South Portion)(South 150,000 63,000 33,500 * IGPD = Imperial Gallons Per Day. 126 exceptthat the: raw water mustbe of such a qualitythat it canbe used in the raw state orbe made acceptablefor use with a minimum oftreatment limitedto disinfection, filtration and/or softening (50). Economic considera- tionsand a lackof technical expertise by theindividual user prohibit the usefor rural ciomestic purposes of raw water suppliesthat require extensive treatment. Bec:ause ofthe difficulty in maintaining a healthyand aesthetically acceptablesurface water supplyfor farm and home operations,groundwater sources are usuallygiven first consideration as a sourcefor individual water supply.In many instances,deficiencies in groundwater quality can beoffset at a relatively low cost compared tothat for surface waters. (f)Effects of Current Water Qualityand Quantity onCurrent and Future Rural Domestic Use- The presentquality of water inthe Souris, Red andAssiniboine rivers is suchthat the use of the water directlyfrom the river for many rural domesticpurposes is precluded.Those users who presentlyutilize the rivers as a sourceof supply for rural domestic purposes, generally use some form of treatment. Waterquantity is not a limitingfactor insofar as satisfaction of thepreviously identified current and future demands for water for rural domesticpurposes is concerned. (8) bffectsof GDU on RuralDomestic Water Use 1. Red River(from international boundary to Lake Winnipeg) Anticipated water qualitychanges as a result of GDU are not expectedto have a significanteffect on currentor future uses of water forrural domestic purposes. Although concentrations of a numberof chemicalconstituents are expectedto increase as a result of projectreturn flows,the water will still beacceptable for existing or anticipated uses withexisting treatment. Additional treatment costs are expectedto be insignificant . 2. SourisRiver (from international boundary to Assiniboine River) There is nodocumented ruraldomestic use from the Souris River, nor is anyanticipated. 3. AssiniboineRiver (from the Souris River to the Red River) Increasesin hardness, TDS, sulfates and totalnitrogen whjch are attributableto GDU (24) will besignificant to rural domestic users alongthe Assiniboine River. 127 Without treatment, increased levels of TDS and sulfates can be expected to cause some reduction in the service lifeof water handling facilities. In addition, the high sulfate levels predicted for certain months could cause temporary physical discomfort to users due to potential laxative effects. Increases in sodium will require consumers with health conditions necessitating low sodium intakes to further restrict their diets, Significant increases in total nitrogen loading has been predicted by the Water Quality Committee(24). If these increases in total nitrogen result in increased algae growth, subsequent decomposition of these growths could contribute to taste and odor problems.It must also be noted that certain forms of algae, upon decomposition, release toxic metabolic products which could have deleterious effects on human health. If the increases in total nitrogen accrue to the rivers in the form of nitrates, adverse effects on human health could also Asresult. discussed previously, nitrate in drinking water has been associated with a sometimes fatal blood disorder in infants known as methemoglobinemia. Concentrations of nitrates which could occur aas result of GDU could increase the susceptibility of certain infants to this disorder. Accord- ing to the Water Quality Committee(24) post-project nitrate levels could, at times, exceed the maximum permissible level 10.0 of mg/l (14). With adequate treatment, however, the aforementioned effects need not be realized. The cost of suitable treatment facilities to pro- vide water of pre-GDU quality was estimated by the Engineering Committee (28).* Costs were estimatedon the basis of providing a reverse osmosis unit at each major withdrawal site for the purpose of reducing sulfate concentrations to pre-GDU levels. The annual costof such facilities is estimated to be $30,600. As described in Chapter 111, this form of treat- ment would reduce most other parameters to less than pre-project levels. 4. -Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba The effect of GDU on rural domestic uses of water from Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba is expected to be insignificant. * The Engineering Committee did not, in fact, estimate the cost of treatment facilities for the Lakeside Colony. However, information available to the Uses Committee(117) indicates that this community is supplied by water which would be affected GDU.by The cost of appropriate treatment facilities has been computed using the methodology developed by the Engineering Committee. 128 VII: RECREATIONAL WATER USE* (a)Introduction Water basedrecreation embraces a widerange of activities, from swimming tosightseeing. In some ofthese, such as swimming, canoeing, boating, etc., water is the medium in which the activity takes place. Inothers, such as hiking,driving for pleasure, picnicking, etc., water plays a backgroundrole, forming part of the overall environment. Thischapter estimates current participation in various water- basedrecreational activities in the study area andallocates this partic- ipationto the various sub-basins. It alsoforecasts participation in theseactivit:ies and concludes by estimating the effects of water quality andquantity on current and future activity levels. Many outdoorrecreational activities are related in someway to water. Althoughonly a fewof these entail direct body contact, water qualityand quantity considerations are not limited to such activities. The recreational activities whichdepend to some degree upon water can be classifiedinto three categories; water dependent, water orientedand upland.Changes in water characteristics become progressively less significantfrom the water dependent class throughthe upland class. The specific activities which fall under each class are listed in Table D.VII.l. Although it is animportant recreational activity in the study area, the discussionof sport fishing is postponedto the next chapter which deals specifically with fish and wildlife. Table D.VII.l: Classificationof Water-based Recreation, excluding Fish and Wildlife, Water Water D ependen t Oriented Dependent Up land SwimmingSkiing Cottaging Boating Camping Bicycling Canoeing Horseback Riding Sailing Picnicking W atersk iing Nature Interpretation Nature Waterskiing Sightseeing ~ -~ ~~ ~ *Excludingfish and wildlife (Chapter VIII) 129 The investigations centered upon the strips of land within one-half mile of either sideof the Souris, Red and Assiniboine rivers, one-half mile inland of the southern portions of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, and within one-half mile of the Portage Diversion. These areas are shown in Figure D.VII.l. (b) Methodology The methodology used in this chapter is summarized here, and dealt with in detail in Attachment D.VII.l. The resource base for recreation (i.e. the supply aspects) was determined on the basis of the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) for Manitoba, supplemented bya brief field reconnaissance. The demand for recreational opportunities was derived by applying participa- tion rates' and man-day participation coefficients2 for each activity shown in Table D.VII.l to the base population generating the demand. This base population is considered to be the total population of southern Manitoba. This enabled the estimation of the number of participants per year engaging in various activities. These persons were then allocatedto various parts of the study area on the basis of existing recreational opportunities as determined by location of current sites and facilities (FigureD.VII.3). Future demand for the various activities was estimated on the basis of population trends (from AttachmentD.III.7), assuming constant participation rates and man-day participation coefficients. These demands were also allocated to various sites in the study onarea the basis of recreational potential. (c) Current Recreational Use Based upon the CLI inventory (Figure D.VII.2), southern Manitoba has generally low capability for water-based recreation, with exceptions occurring along rivers and lakeshore lands where the capability is classified as moderate to high. A summary of sub-basin acreagesof various recreation classes is presented in Table D.VII.2. Land with high recreational capability within the study area accounts for only.5 percent of the total land area of Manitoba. Similarly, land with moderate capability does not represent a signficant portion of the total land area. However, high quality recreational lands generally are scarce and have certain intrinsic qualities not found in other areasof land (i.e. nearness to water, variety and accessibility, etc.). 1 Participation rates show the percentage of the base population which participates in the activities under consideration. 2 Man-day participation coefficients show the numberof times per year that the average participant takes part in the activities under consideration. 130 RECREATIONALUSE STUDY AREA STUDYAREA rgy*, RECREATIONAREAS o IMPORTANTTOWNS 0 CITIES POPULATION OVER 10,000 FIGURE D.YII. I I NORTH MKOTA U.S.A MINNESOTA U.S.A. 132 Table D.VII.2: Recreation Capability: Summary of Acreages from Canada Land Inventory. SECTIONS OF STUDY AREA Generalized Recreation Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Classes River River River Manitoba Winnipeg TOTAL High Capability 0 18,000 9,000 38,000 42,000 107,000 Classes 1, 2 & 3 Moderate 28,000 462,000 114 000 119,000 53,000 776,000 P w Capability w Classes 4 & 5 Low Capability 259,000 468,000 212,000 902,000 302,000 2,143,000 Classes 6 & 7 TOTALS 287 000 948 000 336,000 1,059,000 396,000 3,026,000 Total area in Manitoba defined1:250,000 by map sheets 62F,G,H,I,&J (see Figure D.VII.l) is approximately 18.5 million acres. For summarizing the areas of the recreation classes, the Census Enumeration Areas that best defined the one-half mile boundary about the rivers and lakes were used for calculations. The high acreages in the Low Capability classes are attributed to the extended part of the enumera- tion areas beyond the one-half mile strip. These are therefore of little value. Comparing Figure D.VII.2 with the map of recreation opportunities, Figure D.VII.3, it appears that most use occurs in areas with high capabi- lity classifications, particularly the beach areas of Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. The remainder of the use is spread evenly throughout the moderate capability areas along the Red and Assiniboine rivers. Some note- worthy recreational resources of the regions are the whitewater rivers on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, thought by many to be the finest canoeing and kayaking waterways in Canada. The Souris River is also an important canoeing river. Table D.VII.3 shows the participation rates which were used in the study. These rates were obtained from the Canadian Outdoor Recreation Demand Study (CORDS). Also shown are the calculated "recreation man-days" for 1972 using the CORDS based methodology(37). Some caution must be used in interpreting these figures. The total numberof participants in any one activity, say, swimming, includes persons who participate in other comple- mentary activities such as picnickingan8 thus the figures may reflect some overlap. The 1972 figures were projected to 1975, (using the methodology outlined in Attachment D.VII.l) to establish current levels of use.A full discussion of the rationale for usingCORDS the material and methods of calculating man-days is contained in Attachment D.VII.l. The second column of Table D.VII.4 shows the number of recrea- tion man-days in the various activities for 1975. The table indicates that swimming dominates the water dependent activities involving approxi- mately 3.67 million man-days. Related activities such as camping, picnicking and cottaging are also important. Other activities in Table D.VII.4 are not as important as those mentioned in termsGDU ofeffects and are not given further consideration, as they reply to a lesser extent on the water characteristics of the area. However, it should be stated that any sub- stantial adverse effects on water-contact activities would undoubtedly reduce participation (i.e., swimming-induced) pastimes. Table D.VII.5 shows the results of allocating the 1975 estimates among the study area sub-basins. This confirms the position of Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba as the predominant areas of use. (d) Future Recreational Use Table D.VII.4 shows that swimming will continue to dominate water-dependent recreation in both 1985 and2000. This activity will increase in total number of participants 10 by percent by 1985 (from 1975) and by an additional 12 percent by 2000. Increases are also expected in boating, cottaging, camping and picnicking, all related in varying degrees to water. 134 Table D.VII.3: Calculation of Recreation Man-Days Using CORDS-based Methodology. Days Per Recreation Per Days ParticipationParticipant1yin-Days2 Activity Rate (percent)Activity(ActiveMonths)Rate(Millons) Swimming 42 11.13.66 J-A* Boating 22 J-N9.9 1.68 * F = February Canoeing 9 Canoeing .15 M-N 2.2 Sailing 4 J-A2.9 .099 M = May Waterskiing 4 3.8J .ll J-A = June r. P Cottaging See Note 250/Unit 1.70A = August w Ln Camping 36 5.3 J-A 1.48 N = November Picnicking 59 4.0 J-A 1.84 D = December Nature Int. 11 8.9 J-N .76 Sightseeing 52 10.3 J-N 4.17 Skiing 6 .02 D-F .5 Bicycling 26 J-A 31.4 6.44 Horse Riding 8 .56 J-N 9.3 Note: Cottaging in the study area is limited. Approximately 6,800 units exist in the area. According to 1971 Census, 5.7 percentof households have a vacation home. 1 O.R.R.R.C. National Recreation Survey. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Report 19. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 2 RMD = Population x Participation rate x Activity Days per participant. Participation Activity Days/ 1975 RMD 1985 RMD 2000 RMD Rate (percent) Participants (millions) (millions) (millions) Swimming 42 11.1 3.67 4.03 4.47 Boating 22 9.9 1.71 1.89 2.09 Canoeing 9 2.2 .16 .17 .19 Sailing 4 2.9 .09 .10 .11 Waterskiing 4 3.8 .12 .13 .15 Cottaging see below see below 1.71 1.88 2.08 Camping 36 5.3 1.50 1.65 1.83 P Picnicking 59 4.0 1.86 2.04 2.26 w -4 Int.Nature 11 8.9 .77 .85 .94 Sightseeing 52 10.3 4.22 4.63 5.13 Skiing 6 .5 .023 .026 .029 Bicycling 26 31.4 6.43 7.06 7.82 HorseRiding 8 9.3 .59 .64 .71 Cottaging - The total (1971) number of RMDs attributed to the population is calculated using 3.55 persons per household, with5.7 percent of the household having a cottage and each cottage generating250 RMDs per annum. From studies in the province, only6800 (54percent) of the 12,500 units attributable to the area population were found in the study area.Thus, for each projection only 54 percent of the totalRMDs is attributed to study area. TableD.VII.5: Allocation of CurrentRecreation Man-Days (millions)to Sectors of Study Area. So uris AssiniboineSouris Red Delta Lake Lake Totals To tal A ctivity River River River Marsh Manitoba WinnipegAllocatedCalculatedManitobaMarsh River River River Activity Swimming .2 .4 .2 .1 1.1 1.3 3.3 3.7 Boating - .15 .4 .15 .35 .55 1.6 1.7 Canoeing < .01* < .01 .03 .02 .03 .03 < 0.13 .16 Sailing - < .01 - .02 .03 < 0.06 .09 Waterskiing - < .01 - .03 .04 < 0.08 .12 Cottaging - .05 - .25 1.4 1.7 1.7 I” W Camping .1 .25 .10 .1 .20 .4 1.15 1.5 03 Picnicking .1 .3 .3 .1 .2 .5 1.5 1.9 NatureInter. .01 .05 .03 .25 .59.1 .15 .77 Sightseeing.05 .1 2.0 .1 .4 .5 3.15 4.2 Skiing Bicycling No facility data uponwhich to base allocation. HorseRiding Urban centers will generatemost use. Figure D.VII.4 indicates the expected potentialof the area to accommodate future usage. The area having the greatest potential for recreational development is along the western ofshore Lake Manitoba. Considerable potential for development also exists along the Souris River. It is expected that the distribution of activities among the sub-basins of the study area will be basically similar1975 to (Table D.VII.5) but with slightly more emphasis on areasof high potential around the lakes and along the Assiniboine River. (e) Water Quality Parameters of Importance for Recreational Use The recreational use of a given of body water depends upon a variety of factors suchas water quality, the availability of alternative sites, the quality of the surrounding environment, and others. It is generally agreed that lakes or water bodies with clear,cool, odorless, tasteless water, free of fungi or viruses that may cause irritations or infection are the most desirable for contact recreation. Table D.VII.6 describes someof the most widely- accepted standards used for evaluating the recreational value of water bodies. These criteria are generally consistent with the interim Water Quality Objectives for Manitoba. (f) Effects of Current Water Quality and Quantityon Present and Future Recreation Uses (i) Water Quality The two water quality factors which appearto be the most important in determining the amounts and typesof recreational use in the study area are the large quantitiesof suspended solids in the rivers of the area, particularly the Red River, and the occurrence of algal blooms in southern Lake Winnipeg and in river poo1.s. The water qualityof the rivers, and to some extent the lakes, frequently does not meet the criteria set forth in Table D.VII.6 for recreation activity, particularly body-contact recreation. Turbidity in the Red River and in the southern basin of Lake Winnipeg is one detrimental featurefor recreation in the study area. Along the Red in particular, swimming and boating are limited in some degree by turbidity. The result of high turbidity levels is generally murky and discolored water, which may cause minor skin irritations and eye, ear, nose and throat infections, depending upon the constituents causing the turbidity. This factor may also cause discoloration of boat hulls, and a generally unaesthetic appearance of the water. In spite of these effects of turbidity, the ofuse Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba for recreation is high, as shown in Table D.VII.5. There are no data on the relationship between turbidity levels and participation in water-related activities, and thus the natureof this relationship is unknown. 139 Table D.VII.6: Suggested Water Quality Criteria forContact Recreation Con ditions Criteria Measures Criteria Conditions Clarity - Indesignated swimming ordiving areas Secchi Disc shouldbe visible on the bottom (50) - Inother locations Secchi Disc readingsshould be 1.2 meters (13) Tactility - Conditionsshould not cause a pH changebeyond therange of 6.5 - 8.3 (50) - Conditionsshould not cause the water temperature to exceed 3OOC. (13) Taste & Odour - Freefrom substances which produce objectionable tastes andodours (45) Health(Microbiological) - Freefrom pathogenic organisms so as notto (Water c0ntac.twhere pose hazards healthto (45) ingestion is probable) Sources: (13, 45,50) The occurrenceof algal blooms, particularly in the southern portionof Lake Winnipeg and to a minordegree in the rivers of the study area may also be a factor affecting present levels of recreation use.Again, however, the problem of identifying quantitatively a cause- effectrelationship is currentlyimpossible. Where theoccurrence of algal bloomsand deposits of dead algae are present, activity levels may notbe reduced but the quality of theexperience is certainlyimpaired. In summary, thecurrer,t water quality may have a somewhat negativeeffect on body-contact recreation in the study area. Future recreation uses may be restricted due to a continuedpoor water quality situation.Adjustments to poor conditions, particularly in the Red and Assiniboine River sections, may resultin the development of alternate facilities. 141 (ii) Water Quantity Two problems for recreation arise because of the water quantity characteristics of the study area. In the Souris Basin the variability of streamflow is a major factor affecting current and future recreation opportunities. As well, the occurrence of high water levels on Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba affect levels of participation in some types of recreation, such as boating and cottaging. The wide variations of Souris River flow reduce the potential of the river for many activities, both body-contact and non-contact. Spring flood waters restrict many uses, and often the area is seriously damaged with a deterioration in the aestheticsof the area. The late summer situation is just the opposite. Low water levels restrict canoeing, fishing, swimming, etc., to approximately three months, about half the effective season. Low flows in the rivers mayalso contribute to water quality problems due to algae growth particularly in slack water areas. High water levels on Lakes Manitoba and Winnipeg occur periodically. According to the Lake Winnipeg Recreation Demand Study(52) extreme high water levels in1974 in Lake Winnipeg caused a reduction 80 of to 90 percent of the beach width at Grand Beach. The resulting reduction in attendance at the park was considered to be about20 percent. This would account for approximately 60,000 user days at Grand Beach for swimming alone. The Committee believes that the amount of current use foregone due to water quantity problems defined here is a very low percentage of the total recreation use in the study area. (g) Effects of GDU on Recreational Water Use To evaluate quantitatively the effects of on GDU recreation in southern Manitoba is not possible at this time, in terms of either costs or man-days lost. Recreation research has been unable to' formulate mathematical or functional relationships between the levels of various water quality parameters and the levelof recreational use of a water course. Also, recreational use is a matter of perception by individuals or groups. The number of objective studies of the perceptionof water quality is very limited, and none can be applied to the study area. Thus, the following discussion is qualitative. The data produced by the Water Quality Committee(24) predict an increased loadingof nutrients to Lakes Manitoba and Winnipeg, as a result of GDU, and to the streams of the study area. The Biology Committee (26) assessed the effectsof the increased nutrient supply on Lakes Win- nipeg and Manitoba and in the Red, Assiniboine and Souris rivers.In Lake Winnipeg, it believes that algal growths will increase; the degree of increase is not quantified. Similarly, the Committee predicts an increased 142 algal growth on Lake Manitoba, but was unable to quantify the increase. With regard to the rivers, its report states, "...therea riskis of a significant increase in aquatic plant growth in the (rivers to be affected by GDU) ....if nutrients increase as predicted." This increase will be largest in the Souris River. As noted in an earlier sectionof this chapter, the presenceof abundant biomass may reduce the current attractiveness of the ofwaters the study area for recreation, and certainly causes a decreased aesthetic appeal. Based upon the Biology Committee's findings, the effects of GDU- induced nutrient supplies could be serious insofar as recreationis concerned, especially when the dominant place of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba in the recreational resource base of Manitoba is considered. These effects may range from beach fouling by algae to taste and odor problems in cottage water supplies. Since the amountof biomass in the watersof the study area is projected to increase, turbidity is also likely to increase. Thus some of the problems associated with turbid waters, such as boat hull discoloration, as outlined in section(f) of this chapter, will probably be aggravated. Additional water that will be added to the Souris River by GDU will improve canoeing and other water-based recreational activities on that waterway. (h) Conclusions On the basisof information presented in this chapter, the Com- mittee predicts that there will be no decrease in current water-based recreational activitiesas a result of GDU. (This conclusion does not apply to fish- and wildlife-based recreation.) However, the Committee does expect GDU to havean adverse effect on the qualityof the recreational experience. Increased nutrient loading is likely to have an incremental effect on existing problems associated with algal blooms, taste and odor, and beach fouling. While this is not expected to affect activity levels, the adverse effect on the qualityof the recreational experience is a matter for some concern. 143 VIII: FISH AND WILDLIFE (a) Introduction The Red River valley provides a valuable resource base for sport fishing and limited furbearer harvest and white-tailed deer hunting. Sport fishing use is concentrated near towns and villages; the sport fishery at Lockport Dam is the heaviest in Manitoba. The harvestof bait fishes is also extensive. The Souris River is also used for fish, wildlife and related recreation. The basin is one of Manitoba's most important white-tailed deer wintering and hunting areas. Furbearer populations are good and harvest is substantial. Upland game hunting in the basin can be spectac- ular, and the basin provides some waterfowl harvest opportunities. Sport fishing is dependent on seasonal flows and is not well developed. Fish, wildlife and related recreational resources of the Assiniboine River from its confluence with the Souris River to Winnipeg are generally not well developed. Heavy hunting of white-tailed deer and upland game occurs at central and western portions of the basin; sport fishing use is con- centrated locally. The Lake Manitoba-Delta Marsh complex, joined to the Assiniboine River by an 18-mile diversion canal, offers excellent sport hunting, expecially for waterfowl, Nearly 100 hunting lodges on the fringesof the marsh attest to the long history of waterfowling. Guiding, based upon this hunting activity, is important for the local economy. In addition, the commercial fishery of Lake Manitoba furnishes livelihood for many local fishermen, including treaty Indians. Furbearer harvest is also important to local economies. Lake Winnipeg provides the largest commercial fishery in the Province, employing between1,400 and 2,000 fishermen. The sport fishery of the lake is not well developed, but waterfowl, white-tailed deer, upland game and moose hunting is excellent and intense in some areas, resulting in high economic returns from outfitting. Furbearer harvest is important and large along shores, marshes and tributaries of the lake. (b) Methodology Fish and wildlife uses considered in this chapter are animal- related only. Baseline information for fish, wildlife and related recreational use in the study area was sought from a wide range of provincial and federal government personnel, university and museum personnel, officials of research stations and from scientific literature. Projections of 1975 baseline data to the year 19852000 and were made from trend information available from government files and reports, 144 professional estimates, or rates shown in theSRRRB study. Where the latter rates were used, it was assumed that factors which make up in- creased or decreased use of fish and wildlife resources (population size, amount of leisure time, average annual income, etc.) were the same for Manitoba users as for users in the Souris-Red-Rainy region U.S.of the Information was categorized in the widest possible use components for each of six areas (Delta Marsh, Souris River, Assiniboine River, Red River, Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba). Components were outlined in five broad categories: recreational, commercial, subsistence, other use values and special designations (Attachment D.VIII.l). Three discrete types of information were collected:1975 expressed demand and projections of these data 1985 to and 2000. Data were gathered in units of recreation man-days(RMD's), dollars, numbers (of individuals), and pounds. Sources were requested for all information; in many instances, information furnished represents the best estimates of specialists, since few or no data were available. For fish, wildlife and recreation purposes, the study area in Manitoba is defined as the waters listed above plus one-half mile on either side of rivers and one-half mile inland on shores of lakes.No information was sought for upstream areas (upper Assiniboine River, Lake Winnipegosis, Saskatchewan River watershed, etc.) since these areas soare large that use information could not be gathered in the time alloted for the study. Analyses presented in this chapter are economic extensionsof GDU-caused losses reported by the Biology Committee and suffer method- ological problems inherent in all impact assessments which hope to quantify dollar losses from renewable resources used extensively for recreation. Two procedures are recognized in this report: documentationof user dollars expended in recreational pursuitof renewable resources and replace- ment of habitat necessary to offset the fish or wildlifeloss. Both of these methods have short-comings. For the former, knowledge is incomplete to cost wildlife for aesthetic uses. The best that can be done is to account for direct dollars spent by sportsmen. For the latter, habitat cannot be restored or built for all fish and wildlife species: restoring drained wetlands to mitigate waterfowl losses is usually possible; replacing a lake or river is not. Where the former method has been used the Committee assumed that reductions in fish and/or wildlife populations would be directly proportional to reductions in recreation-associated expenditures. While this is not always true (duck hunters may grumble about reduced bag limits but, to a point, often continue to hunt with the same intensity), it forms a fair basis for impact assessment. Where the latter method is used, the Committee assumed enough lands were available to offset losses.Two other assessment methods, those of replacing lost recreation with other, similar forms and/or building veritable factories to produce wildlife are presently beyond society's technical abilities and are not treated in this report. 145 (c) Current and Future Uses Recreational: Expenditures associated with recreational uses of fish and wildlife in the study area totalled $2,420,0001975 in(Table D.VIII.l, Attachment D.VIII.2). Recreation man-days for these activities totalled about 264,300. Sport hunting was the largest single activity, accounting for $1,446,000 (in1975 dollars) and over50,000 recreation man-days . The waters of the study area have produced Master Angler Awards for several species of fish. In1974, 164 awards were issued for eight species. The Red River in Manitoba produced the most awards,61, probably because of heavier sport fishing activity. It is expected that the rivers of the study area will continueto produce award-sized fish of several species well into the future. By 1985 expenditures associated with recreational uses of fish and wildlife are expected to climb to $2,620,000 (in1975 dollars) and recrea- tion man-days to 291,400. By 2000 these figures are expectedto be just under $2,838,000 and 317,100 recreation man-days. Notable in these trends is a slight reduction in returns from hobby trapping, due to continued habitat loss along waterways. Slight increases in sport fishing and sport hunting are anticipated. Expenditures shown above and in Table D.VIII.l reflect only those monies spent by recreationists in the study area as defined in this chapter. Not shown are the secondary economic effects from these acti- vities, such as purchase of guns, ammunition and supplies by hunters in metropolitan areas such as Winnipeg and Brandon.A portion of these expenditures would be assignable to the study area but gathering such information is beyond the scopeof this study. Thus, expenditures shown here are local only and tend to underestimate the recreational value of fish and wildlife. commercial: Commercial uses of fish and wildlife in the study area reached $4,598,000 in1975 (Table D.VIII.2, Attachment D.VIII.3). Commercial fishing for walleye, sauger, whitefish and bait fish was the largest single item at nearly $2,977,000. Not surprisingly, outfitting and guiding accounted for a combined irncome of $1,542,000, reflecting both the quality of tourism promotion and the effect of new guide education programs in the province. By 1985 commercial usesof fish and wildlife are expected to reach over $6,000,000 and by 2000, nearly$11,500,000. These projected increases are due largely to guiding and outfitting. Trapping returns will decrease slightly. Harvest of walleye and sauger in Lake Manitoba has dropped in recent years, however, marketing of rough fish has increased substan- tially. Because of large differences in prices of these two groups of 14 6 a C cd n 0 oa OaJ i NU u al 'r) 0 $4 & a C cd nE m ma ma rlU n m * 0 0 0 W i0 14 7 U G (d N h Gl2 h 0 m oa n 0aJ N NU U .vt aJ an At 0 &I !& N u3 b m m mh n N U (It (It aJ -n AI 0 &I P.l d N d- h m Gl h m m m -a n mal N rim rn # (It al ri M G 4 (d U C n n c m \D Frl m m 148 fish, however, income has not changed appreciably in the past 25 years and the number of fishermen has remained relatively constant at between600 and 900 (32). It is likely that rough fish species will continue to be important to the Lake Manitoba fishery well into the future. In Lake Winnipeg total production has dropped appreciably in the past 25 years but is expected to hold steady at present levels into the foreseeable future. In spite of a drop in total production, the propor- tion of walleye, sauger and whitefish production has increased considerably over the past 25 years and thus has helped stabilize income(32). Prediction of production and value of these fisheries is difficult because of a host of uncontrollable variables. New research is leading to improved fish populations in some cases; better management will lead to more efficient use of the resource in other cases.At the same time, fish products from these lakes are already relatively high priced (walleye sells for $3- 4 per pound in theU.S.) and further large price increases will likely be met with buyer resistance. In addition, new packaging techniques, more palatable rough fish products and other advances may affect income of these fisheries over the years. Subsidies, changing social values and other factors also play roles. Because of these variables, no meaningful estimate can be made for these fisheries for 19852000. andHow- ever, it can be stated that these fisheries will not drop below 1975 levels in total income. A viable commercial sturgeon fishery exists only in waters north of the study area, namely the Nelson, Churchill and Saskatchewan river systems. In 1974-75, 5,700 pounds of sturgeon meat were harvested in these waters. Roe was last harvested from sturgeon in this area in 1958. Further south, viable roe operations ended in 1965 100 when pounds were harvested from the Bloodvein, Berens, Poplar and other rivers on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. The last sturgeon meat production in these waters was in 1972 when500 pounds were harvested. Essentially, no viable commercial sturgeon fishery for meat or roe remains in southern Manitoba, although some sport fishing of the species is enjoyed in the Whiteshell region. In 1975, only six sturgeon permits were issued to commercial operators, in areas on the east ofside Lake Winnipeg. The harvest of amphibians and reptiles is governed in Manitoba by the Wildlife Act. Manitoba has traditionally been a large supplier of these animals to North American research institutions and hospitals. In 1975 harvest of these animals was worth almost $40,000. As for recreational use, no economic multiplier effects are included in the income shown above for commercial uses, or in Table D.VIII.2. Some important multiplier effects are purchaseof heavy equipment (nets, snowmobiles, traps, etc.) by commercial fishermen and trappers and returns to businesses associated with outfitting (commercial airlines, hotel and rest- aurant accommodations in Winnipeg for clients,etc.). Thus, income from commercial uses of fish and wildlife shown in this paper is minimal and incomplete. 14 9 -Subsistence: Subsistence use of fish and wildlife in the study area is a large and important use aspect not usually foundU.S. in assess- ments. In 1975 treaty Indians, Metis and others consumed an estimated 116,000 upland game and big game animals 250,000and pounds of fish; subsistence trapping returned$62,300 (Table D.VIII.3, Attachment D.VIII.4). Projections of this demand to 1985 show an expected consumptionof 116,000 upland and big game animals 320,000and pounds of fish with slightly lower subsistence trapping incomeof $61,000. By 2000 this con- sumption is expected to be about 111,000 upland and big game animals, 444,000 pounds of fish and $55,000 from subsistence trapping. Because of Indian treaty rights anda desire to retain cultural heritage of minority groups it is likely that Manitoba's "country store" way of life, where wild upland animals and fish are counted as staples throughout the year, is likely to continue as long as supplies last. Sixteen Indian reserves are located in the study area. Their population totals nearly 14,000 (Table D.VIII.4). Reliance on fish and wildlife for sustenance by these people is acknowledged by special regula- tions which allow a wide latitude of harvest methods and seasons. In addition, crafts, guiding and outfitting are major income producers for Indians and Metis in the study area (Table D.VIII.5). Domestic water use by Indian bands is covered elsewhere in this report. -Other Use Values: Manitoba waterways likely to be affected by GDU furnish field study areas for a wide ofrange scientific research and outdoor education, The University of Winnipeg, University of Manitoba and Brandon University engagein fisheries, wildlife, recreation and environmental research along the Souris, Assiniboine and Red rivers, Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba and Delta Marsh. The Delta Waterfowl Research Station and the University of Manitoba Field Station, the two largest field research facilities in Manitoba, are located at Delta Marsh. The Waterfowl Research Station has been in existence for over40 years, furnishing study opportunities to a wide range of investigators and adding to the wildlife management body of knowledge. The University station also hosts graduate students and other researchers in year round programs. Annual budgets of the two facilities total more than$245,000; capital investments total more than $1 million. In addition, Ducks Unlimited (Canada), the Freshwater Institute and the Governmentof Manitoba undertake research in a varietyof locations. Other groups such as the Manitoba Naturalist Society, the ofMuseum Man and Nature, and the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, also study fish, wild- life, recreation, plant communities and archaeological sites along water courses in the study area.As well, a large number of primary and secondary schools use rivers, lakes and marshes in the area for outdoor education, Such uses, and the approved research projects discussed above, are too scattered and/or intermittent to list. 150 Table D.VIII.3: Baseline Summary, Subsistence Fish and Wildlife Uses in Manitoba. (000's) Environmental 1975 1985 2000 Aspect Expressed Demand Projected Demand Projected Demand C1) Subsistence $ 62.3 $ 61.0 !3 54.9 Trapping C2) Subsistence 116.0 116.2 110.6 Hunting animals animals animals C3) Subsistence 250.0 320.0 444.0 Fishing pounds pounds pounds Source: (36) Table D.VIII.4: ManitobaIndian Reserves Locatedin the Study Area, 1974. 1974 Band Name Population Berens River 835 Bloodvein 410 Brokenhead 482 Crane River Crane 162 and Flow Ebb and 576 Fairford 848 Fisher River Fisher 1,194 Fort Alexander Fort 2,341 Grand Rapids Grand 314 Hollow Water 405 Jackhead 328 Lake Manitoba Lake 573 Long Plain 945 Peguis 2,366 Pop lar River Poplar 459 Sandy Bay 1,658 Total 13,896 152 Table D.VIII.5: Areas where Indian and Metis Derive Major Income From Guiding and Outfitting in the Study Area. Name Dauphin River BloodveinRiverRiver Dauphin Lake St. Martin Oak River Grand Rapids Birdtail Creek Easterville Oak Lake St. Laurent Swan Lake Dog Creek Crane River Crane Creek Dog Sandy Bay Ebb and Flow and Ebb BaySandy hole River Source : (36) Special Designations: Forty-seven areas in Manitoba which could be affected bv GDU bear special designations as Wildlife Management Areas, Waterfowl Prohuction areas, National-or Provincial Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Public Shooting Grounds, Urban Peripheral Recreation Areas, Ducks Unlimited marshes or National Historic Sites (Table D.VIII.6). Also, GDU could affect 13 International Biological Program sites (Table D.VIII.7). One of these, Reindeer Island, has recently been designated as Manitoba's first ecological reserve. In the Delta Marsh area, about100 private shooting lodges are now in operation and two large gun clubs, Portage and Lakewood, Own large acreages of land in the western portion of the marsh. (d) Effects of Current Water Quality and Quantity on Current and Future Fish and Wildlife As in other chapters of this Appendix, an attempt was made to determine uses foregone becauseof existing water quality or quantity. The 153 TableD.VIII.6: Special Area Designations in the Study Area. Designation Name Location ProvincialParks Spruce Woods AssiniboineRiver GrandBeach LakeWinnipeg Hecla Island LakeWinnipeg National Parks Bloodvein (proposed) Lake Winnipeg Lake (proposed) Bloodvein Parks National NationalHistoric Sites Riel House Red River Lower FortGarry Red River Winnipeg(proposed) Confluenceof the Red and Assiniboine rivers P u1 c- National Trails Treesbank(proposed) Confluenceof Souris and Assiniboine rivers St. Lazarre(proposed) Assiniboine River Red River(proposed) Red Riverto Lake Winnipeg LakeWinnipeg (proposed) Netley Marsh to Norway House Wildlife Management Areas Delta Marsh (proposed) Delta Marsh Moosehorn LakeManitoba Sour is River Bend SourisRiver Hilbre Lake Manitoba AssiniboineRiver (proposed) Assiniboine River Dog Lake Lake Manitoba PeonanPoint LakeManitoba Steep Rock Lake Manitoba LauderSandhills Sour is River WildlifeRefuges St.Ambroise Lake Manitoba Delta Gamebird Delta Marsh MarshyPoint LakeManitoba Reykjavik Lake Manitoba Oak Point Lake Manitoba continued Table D.VIII.6 Continued Designation Name Location PublicShooting Grounds Big Point Lake Manitoba Netley Marsh Urban Peripheral Barc Property Red River Recreation Areas Rat River Red River FortDufferin Red River St. Jean Red River Ducks UnlimitedMarshes Poplar Hill AssiniboineRiver Penner Assiniboine River Leo AssiniboineRiver White AssiniboineRiver John Perrin Assiniboine River Lyall AssiniboineRiver Johnston Assiniboine River Torry AssiniboineRiver Waller AssiniboineRiver Lagoon Assiniboine River Charolais Assiniboine River Fouillard AssiniboineRiver Woodtick SourisRiver Robson SourisRiver Duncan Red River Goldeye Red River Source: (16) (35) (36) Table D.VIII.7: InternationalBiological Program Sites inthe Study Area. Site Name Site Number Location Delta Marsh 40 Delta Marsh Souris Bend WMA 30 River Souris Chickadee Land Prairie 9 Assiniboine River SairRiverbottom Forest 6 Assiniboine River Beaudry Farm 5 AssiniboineRiver Great BlueHeron Rookery 57 AssiniboineRiver SelkirkBottomland Forest 29 Red River ReindeerIsland 39 LakeWinnipeg BlackIsland 7 LakeWinnipeg ElkIsland 55B LakeWinnipeg GrandBeach 55A Winnipeg Lake Little GrindstonePoint 72 Winnipeg Lake G eorges Island 45 Lake Winnipeg Lake 45 Island Georges Source: (36) 156 material outlined here pertains principally to the Souris River, since there appear to be no fish and wildlife uses foregone in the Red or Assiniboine basins. A slightly different definition of a use foregone is used in this chapter; a use foregone is a fish or wildlife related activity which currently occurs, but is limited by either water quality or quantity considerations. Uses which do not exist ofas 1975 are not considered, regardless of whether or not they would be limited by water quality or quantity constraints. (i) Water Quantity An examination of ali fish, wildlife and recreation uses for the Souris River produced only one use, namely, sport fishing that is bylimited current water availability. This activity is limited to about three months of the year by lack of water.If streamflows were increasedso that the season could be extended to the normal six months, this use1976 for could have been 4,000 RMD's instead of 2,000 RMD's and $20,000 expended instead of $10,000. (ii) Water Quality Fish and wildlife tolerance levels for11 water quality con- stituents were compared to present levels in the Manitoba portion of the study area by the Biology Committee(26). This comparison showed no fish or wildlife populations limited by present water quality in any of the waters of the study area. Therefore, there are no fish or wildlife-based uses foregone due to present water quality. (e) Effects of GDU Since this section of the Appendix centers on animal-related activities, assessment ofGDU'S influence on those activities is drawn from the Biology Committee's report (26). In that report, time frames are given for only one major adverse impact- commercial fishing. It is expected that the other reported impacts will be manifest within 10 oryears, by 1985. Thus, the effects ofGDU on recreational, commercial and subsistence uses of fish and wildlife in Manitoba which follow, are predicted only1985, for with the exception of commercial fishing, which is predicted2000. at Also, the Biology Committee did not quantify all predicted adverse impacts. The unquantified impacts were listed as concerns. Wildlife Losses: The Biology Committee(26) predicted the loss of 35,500 ducks annually, which represents about1.2 percent of southern Manitoba's breeding waterfowl population(38). In 1975, duck hunters realized 222,000 recreation man-days in southern Manitoba.At an estimated rate of expenditure of $20 per recreation man-day these hunters spent approximately $4,440,000 on hunting ducks. The loss of 35,500 ducks thus equates to an annualloss of $54,000 in hunter expenditures and2,700 recreation man-days at1975 levels of participation, assuming a proportional 157 relationship between aloss of ducks and a decline in hunter expenditures. This does not include theloss of associated expenditures for guiding and outfitting nor does it include Saskatchewan's and Alberta's share of the duck loss in North Dakota due to GDU. Another method of quantifying this loss is to estimate the cost of replacing the habitat of which this pro- duction is based. At a rate of1.1 fledged young per wetland/upland acre, the production of 35,500 ducks in Manitoba would require32,300 acres of wetland habitat. The value of this amount of habitat in the form of presently drained, low agricultural capability wetland basins which could be reclaimed for duck production is $200 per acre ($125 for acquisition plus $75 surveys, plugging drains, etc.) $6.46or million for the annual loss of 35,500 ducks, The recreation losses assigned to the35,500 ducks reported above does not include additional impact which could arise from other waterfowl losses reported by the Biology Committee as unquantified concerns. These include conversion of North Dakota grasslands to irrigated croplands, increased incidences of waterfowl diseases and altered staging and migra- tion patterns of geese in North Dakota. Fish Losses: Fish losses predicted by the Biology Committee due to the introduction of exotic species as a result of GDU are reported for Manitoba and Winnipeg (26). Impact is presented in the Biology Committee's report in termsof percent reduction in populations (TableD.VIII.8). Since harvest information, by species, for the two basins of Lake Winnipeg is not readily available, the Biology Committee's assessment(50 percent reduction of the species) has been accepted as an overall "most likely" reduction of these species in the two lakes (Table D.VIII.8). The economic loss to commercial and sport fishing is taken to be 50 percent of the average annual value of fish caught during the last five years. 'The total value of the principal species caught, whitefish, walleye and sauger, was calculated from Manitoba Government records.All dollar amounts were adjusted to December 1975 using a fish selling price index. The annual, total and average economic valueof the commercial fishery is shown in Table D.VIII.9 for Lake Winnipeg and D.VIII.10 Table for Lake Manitoba. The combined average value for commercial fishing on both lakes is $2,977,000 in 1975 dollars; thus, the estimated direct annual commercial fishingloss in Manitoba dueto GDU will be $1,488,500. The worth of in-province processing, transporting and merchandising, etc. of food fish amounts to abouta doubling of the gross valueto fishermen (103). Thus the total annual estimated GDU-caused impact on Manitoba commercial fishing and processing will be about $2,977,000 in 1975 dollars. The anticipated loss of 50 percent of the walleye, sauger and whitefish populations in Lakes Manitoba and Winnipeg will result in additional impacts to sport fishing and subsistence fishing. Impact on sport fishing will amount to an estimated annualloss of $131,000 in 158 Table D.VIII.8: Biology Committee's Best Prediction of Percent Reduction in Population Sizeof Four Commercially Important Fish Species in Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba as a Result of Introduction of Exotic Fish Species. Percent Reduction in Population Size (lowest-mostlikely-maximum)l Overall Most Likely LakeWhitefish Walleye & SaugerReduc t ion2 LAKE WINNIPEG North Basin 25 - 50 - 75 25 - 50 - 75 50% South Basin 0- 5-10 25 - 50 - 75 50% LAKEMANITOBA 10 - 30 - 50 - 75 - 99 50% 1 Source: IGDSB, Report of the Biology Committee, Appendix C (26). 2 Since harvest information by species and by basin for Lake Winnipeg is not readily available, the "overall most likely reduction'' is our interpretation of Biology Committee predictions. The estimate is based onlow proportion of whitefish harvest from the South Basin of Lake Winnipeg and does not include predicted losses to lake herring harvest, since this species constitutes only a small portion of the total fisheries value in these lakes. 159 Table D.VIII.9: Walleye, Sauger and Whitefish Value to Lake Winnipeg Commercial Fisherman, 1972-1976* (Figures in 1975 dollars) Whitefi sh Walleye Sauger Totals YearSauger WalleyeWhitefish 1972-73 $ 750,945$1,195,818$1,583,309 $ 3,530,072 1973-74 $ 676,749 $ 935,640$1,197,965 $ 2,810,354 1974-75 $ 710,686 $ 918,336$1,069,935 $ 2,698,957 1975-76 $ 680,405$1,029,903$1,174,162 $ 2,884,470 TOTALS $3,570,334$4,153,968$5,241,155$12,965,457 AVERAGES $ 714,067 $ 830,794$1,048,231 $ 2,593,091 * Source: (37) 160 Table D.VIII.lO: Walleye, Sauger and Whitefish Value to Lake Manitoba Commercial Fisherman,1971-76l (Figures in1975 dollars) Year Whitefish Walleye Sauger Totals Sauger Walleye Whitefish Year ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~- 1971-72 $$175,483 $172,0197,510 $ 335,012 1972-73 $$308,552 $129,1395,000 $ 442,691 1973-74 $ $222,9683,145 $ 87,621 $ 313,734 1974-75 $ 5,071 $ 99,585$238,442 $ 343,098 1975-76 $$189,778 $272,6293,402 $ 465,809 TOTALS $24,128 $999,366 $899,850 $1,920,344 AVERAGES $ 4,826 $199,273 $179,970 $ 384,069 1 Source: (37) related expenditures in terms 1975of dollars, and 26,200 RMD's by the year 2000 (Attachment D.VIII.2-A3). Subsistence foods will be reduced by222,000 pounds of fish annually by that year (AttachmentD.VIII.4-C3). The estimated loss to sport fishing does not include expenditures for boat rentals, resorts and fly-in-camps, since these items, while portrayed in this report (Attach- ment D.VIII.3-B5) could not readily be separated from sport hunting activities. Losses listed above for commercial and sport fishing are predicted as a resultof the introduction of exotic species only(26). Not included are potential losses due to fish diseases, fish parasites and the effect of changed water quality on indigenous species. These concerns were not quantified in the Report of the Biology Committee(26). In addition, losses above do not include potential losses to fisheries in Lake Winnipegosisor waters north of Lake Winnipeg, especially the Nelson River, No effects GDUfrom are anticipated on any of the special designated areas shown inD.VIII.6. Table 161 Other Aspects: The Biology Committee (26) did not report any adverse impacts on furbearers, amphibians and reptiles, or rare and endangered species. Therefore, no impacts are predicted on uses of these resources in Manitoba as a result GDU. of These uses include amphibian and reptile commercial harvest, registered, hobby and subsistence trapping, craft use of animals or sport fishing in the study area (AttachmentsD.VIII.2, D.VIII.3 and D.VIII.4). ( f ) Summary GDU will cause the following losses to fish and wildlife uses in Manitoba: 1. 28,900 RMD's annually to sport fishing and waterfowl hunting. 2. $185,200 annually in hunter and fishermen-related expen- ditures or$6.46 million to replace waterfovl habitat. 3. $2,977,000 annually in commercial fishing, processing and marketing. 4. 222,000 pounds of fish annually as subsistence food. 162 IX: OTHER USES In addition to the uses outlined in ChaptersI11 to VIII, the Committee examined possible GDU effects on mining, forestry, and archaeological research. Although none of these activities are important usersof water in the study area, the Committee had some initial concerns that increased flood- ing or erosion that might result from the additionof GUD return flows could adversely effect these activities. In each case, the analysis discussed in the following sections, is confined to the Manitoba portion of the study area. (a) Effects of GDUon Mining An inventory of mining operations was carried out for each of the sub-basins (Souris River, Red River, Assiniboine River, Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg). The various types of mining activities identified are shown in Table IX.l Of the activities listed in TableIX.l, only sand and gravel operations, which in some cases are located near the river banks, could potentially be affected byGDU. However, following an examination of data with regard to incremental flooding and erosion expected to result from GDU (24, 28), the Committee concluded that even these operations would not be affected. (b) Effects of GDU on Forestry The forest valuein the study area is estimated $43,783,000 at on 104,600 acres (Attachment D.IX.l). Potential employment for harvest is estimated at 2,400 man-years. Following an analysis of data provided by the Water Quality and Engineering Committees(24, 28), it was con- cluded that the incremental flooding and erosion expected to result from GDU would not significantly affect forestry in the study area. (c) Effects of GDU on Archaeological Research Archaeological research in the Souris River Basin has, to date, been minimal. In the late1800's and early 1900's there were sporadic activities that concentrated primarilyon burial mound excavations. No field research was conducted from1915 to 1970. At the beginning of this decade Leigh Syms of Brandon University carried out a research program in the area where the Antler River and Gainsborough Creek enter the Souris River. This is the only archaeological survey of any real scope that has been done along the Sourisso it is not surprising that it in is the area of this survey that the vast majority of known sites are located. 163 Table IX.l: Mining Activities in the Study Area 1. Sour is River Area a) Sand and Gravel b) Oil c) Clay and shale 2. Red River Area a) Sand and gravel b) Clay and shale c)Gypsum 3. Assiniboine River Area a) Sand and gravel 4. Lake Manitoba Area a) Sand and gravel b) Gypsum c) Limestone and dolomite 5. Lake Winnipeg Area a) Sand and gravel b) Silica sand c> Limestone Attachment D.IX.2 presents topographic mapsof the Souris River showing the known archaeological sites along the river. The shaded areas shown represent the extentof each site as estimated by the Manitoba Historic Resources Branch(119). There are several sites located close to the river in areas where erosion could partially destroy them or is destroying them at present. Following is a brief descriptionof each site threatened by erosion or slumping. Dh Mg-10 and 11 (Riverview I and I1 Sites). These sites are a possible habitation site and burial mound respectively. They cover a fairly large area on both sides of the Souris (AttachmentD.IX.2). The banks are not high and the sites are low-lying. The danger of bank slumping is minimal but, because there is a meander running through the site, erosion of the bank at the outsideof the meander could partially destroy the site. 164 Dh Mg-7 (Brockinton Site). The Brockinton Site is primarily noted as a bison kill site that was used by many different groups in the past. It is located on the outside of a meander on a bank50 aboutfeet high (Attachment D.IX.2). Major slumping is not considered a danger. The site is known to be eroding at present and minor slumps are threat- ening it. Dh Mf-9. Lithic and ceramic fragments were discovered at this site including projectile points and pot sherds. This site is believed to cover a large, extended area (Attachment D.IX.2). It is uncertain which side of the river it is located on. The banks are not high and appear to be stable. Because the site is close to the river, erosion will affect it but erosion is not considered to be a major problem here. Dj Md (Denbow Site). Lithic artifacts were found at this site which straddles the river (Attachment D.IX.2). The banks are over25 feet high in places and erosion could induce minor slumping which would cause damage to the site. Erosion itself would not be a major problem unless it caused slumping. LAS-476. Several lithic artifacts were discovered here including knives, projectile points, scrapers, and choppers. This site is on50 a foot bank just downstream of the town of Souris on sloping terrain (Attachment D.IX.2 ). Erosion could cause minor slumping here that would partially destroy the site. Dj Lx (Gregory's Mill Site). Several prehistoric lithic flakes and one historic square nail have been discovered on this site.It is located several miles upstream of the Village of Wawanesa (Attachment D.IX.2 ) on a steeply sloping bank about150 feet high. The site is situated on slump debris and erosion could re-activate the slide. Dj Lv-1. Several lithic artifacts have been found on this site, among them a knife,hamerstones, and projectile points. It is located on steeply sloping terrainon the bank of the Souris (AttachmentD.IX.2). The bank is over75 feet high and erosion could cause a slide that would extensively destroy the site. While there are several known sites threatened by erosion (among them the Brockinton Site which was declared to be of national importance by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board in 1973), it is the loss or damage of the as yet undiscovered sites that concerns many archaeolo- gists. They feel that the Souris River Basin is a rich area for archaeological research and are convinced that the known sites represent only a fraction of the sites to be found along the river.Any further work that can be done on the endangered sites should be carried out as soon as possible and thought should be given to initiating a program to find and evaluate all the important sites that are in danger. 165 On the basis of observations on the Assiniboine River, it may be assumed that the meandering of the Souris River in some areas causes bank recessions of one to two feet per year. The rates would vary from one point to another along the river and also from one year to the next. The additional flow due toGDU would superimpose a widening of the river channel of about three feet on the existing natural erosion processes and would also accelerate the meandering processto some extent. The net effect of these movements would beloss the of a strip of land several feet wide generally along the outside of river bends. Thus a portion of several known sites and portions of an unknown number of as yet unidentified sites would be completely lost. The effectsof increased erosion on the Assiniboine and Red Rivers are expected to be minor in nature and masked by the existing erosion processes. To minimize the archaeological impacts along the Souris River, two requirements are important: salvage of important sites currently known to be undergoing erosion; reconnaissance of erodable areas for sites that will be threat:ened by effects of theGDU. In the lightof historic natural erosive processes, at least one major archaeol-ogical site, the Brockington site, is degrading. Attempts have been made in the past to rescue at least portions of this site and a sum of $20,000 has been included in the1977-78 estimates of the Historic Resources Branch to continue with the work on that location. However, in view of the increased channel widening and meandering,a asresult of GDU, an additional effort is needed to assess the extent of the archaeological resource threatened by increased flows. Specifically, the following must be undertaken: (1) A determination of how many of the known sites within the impact zone areof sufficient value to be rescued (not all identified sites would rank high on a priority list, by virtue of the fact that many have already been disturbed by cultivation); (2) A reconnaissance of the outsides of meanders(i.e., those sections of the river along which erosion can be expected to be greatest) to determine if archaeological sites are in fact present. This aspect would address itself to areas which are archaeologically unknown at this time. In order to carry out the foregoing task effectively, it is recommended that a 3-year program be established. Each year selected por- tions of the various reaches of the Souris River would be examined as follows : Year 1 - Reach 1 & 2 Year 2 - Reach 3 & 4 Year 3 - Reach 5 & 6 166 Sites found in the course of the reconnaissance and determined to be important would be subjected to full-scale excavation the year following their discovery. The reconnaissance itself can be expected to cost approxi- mately $30,000 per year. The cost of excavations resulting from the findings of the survey cannot be calculated at this time. Costs could be substantially greater than those associated with the reconnaissance, Several additional points must be made: (1) The projection that the width of the Souris River will increase by 3 feet over 30 years (28) may be accurate if one takes into account concurrent sedimentation on the insides of meanders. However, this projection is irrelevant if an archaeological site is situated on the outside of a meander that erodes at a rate 1of to 2 feet per year. (2) It is premature to suggest that significant known archaeo- logical resources along the Souris River will be affected to a modest degree by the expected erosion(28); likewise, the notion that no sites would be completely(28) lost due to the effects of the GDU cannot be accepted at the present time . (3) The above stress upon the outside meanders as prime loci of erosion is somewhat over-simplified. During spring floods, the river over-flows its banks and spreads across the valley floor. Consequently, erosion takes place along the footof the bluffs at the edge of the flood plain. Hence, the proposed reconnaissance could not realistically be confined solely to existing outside meanders. The stated cost of$30,000 per year should therefore be considered a minimal figure. 167 X. ALTERNATIVES Introduction During the course of the GDU study many project modifications were considered by the various technical committees. Some of these were rejected as impractical. An example of a suggested modification which failed to pass a practicality test was ozonization of all McClusky Canal water to completely eliminate all living organisms and thus pre- vent the introduction into Canada of all exotic biota. This modification would have required a capital investment of about$150 million, would have cost about$7,000 per day to operate, and would have required nearly all the power output of the Garrison Dam. From the final list of modification suggestions forwardedby the technical committees, the Study Board identified four as meriting detailed consideration. They are: (1) Replacement of ClassA soils (Plan I or Plan 11). (2) Wetland restoration concept and other waterfowl production modifi- cations. (3) Elimination of direct surface water connections (closed system) plus modifications to the McClusky Canal fish screen. (4) Lining of the Velva Canal (PlanI or Plan 11). In addition, the Board requested detailed consideration of the following combinations : (5) Combination I - (1) Plan I, (2) and (3). (6) Combination I1 - (1) Plan I, (2), (3) and (4) Plan I. (7) Combination I11 - (1) Plan I, (2), (3) and (4) Plan 11. The Uses Committee has examined these modifications and com- binations of modifications with respect to their effects on previously identified GDU impacts on uses of water in the Canadian portion of the study area. In each of the following sections a brief descriptionof the particular modification and its likely effects on water quantity, water quality and biological parameters is given. More detailson each modification and its effects on quantity, quality and biological para- meters can be found in AppendicesA, B, C and E(24, 25, 26, 28). The effect of the project alteration or combination of modifications on particular uses of water is described below: 168 (1) Replacement- of ClassA Soils (Plan I and Plan 11) One modification to the authorized plan (PlanI) would replace 1,893 acres of ClassA soils in the Souris Loop area with an equivalent acreage of Class I soils. These soils have similar physical properties but different chemical properties, Although the total area to be ir- rigated would be unchanged and return flow volumes to the Souris River would be Unaffected(25), the acreage-weighted electrical conductivityof the soils to be irrigated would decrease1.23 to mmho/cm from the1.67 mmho/cm associated with the soilsto be irrigated under the authorized plan. Plan I1 would replace 3,588 acres of ClassA soils and 5,483 acres of Class I soils in the Souris Loop area with2,448 acres of Class I1 soils and 6,623 acres of Class 3 soils. The effects of this plan would be very similar to PlanI in that, although the total irri- gated acreage is unchanged, the acreage-weighted electrical conductivity of the soils to be irrigated would decreaseto 1.19 mmho/cm. Return flow volumes would be relatively unaffected with annual return flow volumes being reduced by about two percent(25). The impact of either of these modifications on water quality would be highestin the Souris River near Westhope, moderate in the Assini- boine River above Portage la Prairie, and least in the Red River at Selkirk. The Red River at Emerson would not be affected. The effects of either Plan I or Plan I1 on projected water quality during the equil- ibrium period are predicted to be smaller than those for the peak impact period (24). No change in biological parameters is anticipated(26). For the Souris River at Westhope, the predicted "best-estimates" of TDS during the peak impact period would 60 be to 220 mg/l less than for the authorized plan during nine months of the year(24). For the months of April through June, no significant change in predicted TDS is projected. Predicted "best-estimate" concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate and hardness exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationship to the authorized plan as does TDS.No differences in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations from those projected for the authorized plan are anticipated. For the Assiniboine River above Portagela Prairie the imple- mentation of either PlanI or Plan I1 would result in less than a six percent reduction in "best-estimate" peak impact concentrations of TDS from those predicted to result from the authorized plan(24). The largest change, predicted for January, would TDSsee reduced from 770 mg/l to about 730 mg/l. All other changes in "best-estimates"of TDS, major ions and hardness would beless than six percent. Predicted concentra- tions of calcium, sodium, sulfate and hardness would exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationshipto the authorized plan as doesTDS. NO significant differences in predicted levelsof nitrate-nitrogen or total phosphorus are anticipated. 169 Neither Plan I nor Plan I1 will significantly affect the water quality predicted for the Red River for the authorized plan. Implementa- tion of either plan would not significantly change the effects on water use which have been predicted for the authorized plan. Although some minor reductions in municipal treatment costs would likely result, these are not considered to be significant. Slight decreases in sodium levels may result in some benefits to people on salt-restricted diets. Minor reductions in sulfate levels may somewhat reduce laxative effects to municipal and rural domestic users and livestock.No changes in other previously identified effects are anticipated. In summary, although this modification is relatively cost- free and easily implemented, improvements in water quality are not expected to significantly change previously identifiedGDU effects. (2) Wetland Restoration Concept and Other Waterfowl Production Modifications The wetland mitigation plan contained in the authorizedGDU plan provided for an average annual delivery of 165,000 acre-feetof water to 36 major and 27 minor wildlife areas. Under the new wetland restoration concept, these areas would largely be replaced by many small wetland complexes which would use natural inflow ratherGDU than deliveries for their sources of water supply.No return flows would accrue to Canada from the fish and wildlife developments contained in the new concept (25). This would result in 12a percent annual reduction in total project return flow to the Souris River from that projected for the authorized plan (winter flows would be reduced by about22 percent and summer flows by about8 percent). Annual return flow volumes to the Red River would remain about the same although summer return flows would be increased by about14 percent and winter return flows reduced by about 20 percent. The anticipated reductions in return flows to the Souris River would result increases in concentrations of TDS and nitrate- nitrogen in receiving streams for the SourisLoop, Wild Rice and Seyenne areas (24). As for the alterations with regard to Class A soils, the impact of this alternative on water quality would be largestthe inSouris River near Westhope, slight in the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie and least in the Red River. For the Souris River near Westhope, the "best-estimates"of TDS for all months except April through July are greater than those for the authorized plan (24). The greatest increases from predicted values for the authorized plan would be140 mg/l for January and230 mg/l for February. "Best-estimate" concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate and hardness exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationship to the authorized plan as does TDS. "Best-estimate" predictions of nitrate- nitrogen for the months of October through March are10 aboutto 25 percent 170 greater than those projected for the authorized plan.No significant differences are expected for the months of April through September. Total phosphorus concentrations are not expected to differ greatly from those computed for the authorized plan, For the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie, peak impact concentrations of TDS, major ions and hardness at this station would be increased by less than six percent from those expected with the authorized plan. Predicted concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen and total phosphorus are not expected to change significantly. Adoption of the revised fish and wildlife plan would not sig- nificantly change the quality of the water in the Red River from that predicted for the authorized plan. The wetland restoration concept, together with other modifica- tion suggestions including cessation of private wetland drainage along GDU waterways and reduced channelization of Souris River tributaries in North Dakota (26) will offset most, if not all, of the waterfowl loss associated withGDU. The new wetland restoration concept has been authorized under the original plan 146,530 of acres; thus additional costs for implementation of the concept are small. The only costs associated with cessationof private wetland drainage intoGDU waterways would likely be for monitoring and enforcement. The suggested modifi- cations to avoid channelizationof the Souris River tributaries have not been studied in detail. No other significant changesto previously identified effects of GDU on water uses are anticipated to result from implementation of this alternative. Increased nitrate levels on the Souris River could increase the risk of methemoglobinemia in infants. Increases in nitrates, other chemical constituents and taste and odor could somewhat increase municipal treatment costs at Souris above those identified for the author- ized plan. Increased sodium and sulfate levels could also exacerbate previously identified effects. Decreased return flow volumes would re- duce the previously identified incremental flood damagesof $24,000 annually by about $2,000. As well, potential irrigation opportunities in the Souris Basin would be reduced to 4,800about acres from 5,200. In summary, implementation of this alternative would result in significant changes to previously identified effects with regard to waterfowl. This alternative would offset most, if not all,of the waterfowl loss and losses to associated hunting activities that were predicted for the authorized plan, Changes in other effects associated with the authorized plan are expected to be minor. (3) Elimination of Direct Surface Water Connections This alternative consists of four separate modificationsto the project outlined in the authorized plan. These modifications include 17 1 storage and re-use of operational wastewater flows, alterations to Lonetree Reservoir outlet works, sand filtrationof water releases from the Velva Canal to Livingston Reservoir and from Lonetree Dam to the Sheyenne River, and modifications to the McClusky Canal fish screen (28). These modifications would ensure that all surface water from GDU would be filtered through a soil profile or passed through a sand filter before entering Canadian receiving streams thus eliminating the possi- bility of transferof aquatic organisms between the Missouri River and Husdon Bay drainage basins. If this alternative were implemented, no operational wastes would accrue to Canadian rivers. Although winter return flows to the Souris River would be the same as those which are expectedto occur under the authorized plan, summer return flows would be decreased by about 17 percent. This would amount to an annual reductionof approxi- mately 11 percent (25). As for the Souris River, winter return flows to the Red River would be unaffected by this alternative. Summer return flows, however, would be reduced by about23 percent resulting in an annual reduction in GDU return flows to the Redof Riverabout 16 percent (25). Reductions in return flows to the Souris and Red rivers would result in increases in the concentrationsof total dissolved solids and nitrate-nitrogen in receiving streams for the Souris Loop, Wild Rice and Sheyenne areas. As for the alternatives already discussed, impacts on water quality would be largest in the Souris River near Westhope, slight in the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie and least in the Red River. Effects would be greatest during the peak impact period, with effects during the equilibrium period being somewhat less. Because operational wastes having relatively low concentrations of TDS would be eliminated under this alternative, this would eliminate a source of dilution water from streams. Therefore, TDS concentrations in the receiving streams during the irrigation season would be greater than they would be under the authorized plan. For the Souris River,TDS Concentrations during August and September would144 be mg/l, or 11 per- cent, greater than for the authorized plan(24). Predicted increases for the months of May through July vary from9 to 73 mg/l. Predicted "best-estimate" concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate and hardness exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationship to the authorized plan as does TDS. "Best-estimate" concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen are projected to increase by a maximum0.1 of to 0.2 mg/l over those for the authorized plan. Total phosphorus concentrations are not expected to differ significantly from those projected for the authorized plan. The effect of this alternativeon water quality in the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie is similar to the previous alternative. TDS concentrations can be expected to increase by less 172 than six percent. Concentrations of major ions and hardness would exhibit simiilar tendencies. No significant differences in nitrate- nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations have been predicted. Implementation of this alternative is not expected to have a significant effect on the quality of water in the Red River from that predicted for the authorized plan. This modification, including re-design and operation of the McClusky Cand fish screen, would completely eliminate the possibility of introduction of Missouri River fish, fish diseases (except viral) and fish parasite species exotic to Manitoba. Costs of this modifi- cation have been estimated $21.6at million to eliminate operational wasteways, $9 million for a sand filter for the Livingston outlet, $25.5 million for relocation of the Sheyenne River outlet works, $1.9 million for sand filtration of municipal and industrial releases to the Sheyenne River and$2 million for redesign of the McClusky Canal fish screen for a totalof about $60 million (28). The removal of exotic biota would eliminate previously identified annual losses in Canada of $2,977,000 in commercial fishing and related revenue, 222,000 pounds of fish used for subsistence,$131,000 in sport fishing revenue, 26,200 recreation man-days devoted to sport fishing, associated unquantified guiding and outfitting Posses, and potential unquantified fish losses due to fish parasites and diseases (except possibly viral). Other changes to the anticipated effects of the authorized plan expected to result from implementation of this alternative are relative- ly insignificant. Slight increases in municipal treatment costs at Souris could result. Increases in sodium and sulfate concentrations in the Souris River could aggravate the identified concerns with regardto these constituents. Incremental flood damages would likely be reduced to about $20,000 annually from $24,000. Potential irrigation opportuni- ties along the Souris River would be reduced from a 5,200possible acres to about 4,300 acres. Along the Red River, a reduction of30 percent in previously identified irrigation opportunities would result. Marginal potential benefits to canoeing on the Souris River would also be reduced. In summary, although relatively costly, this alternative, if implemented, would eliminate most of the losses which would accrue to commercial, subsistence and sport fishing in Canada as a result of the authorized plan. Other changes, in comparison, would be relatively mino . r (4) Lining of Velva Canal (PlanI or Plan 11) To reduce the amountof seepage from the Velva Canal and hence to improve the quality of returnflows that reach the Souris River, two alternatives have been identified which involve lining of the Velva Canal. One alternative, PlanI, is to line the entire84 miles of the canal withan impermeable material. Pian I1 would involve 173 lining only those sections of the canal, about60 miles in total length, which pass through glacial till. The remaining24 miles of the canal which pass through outwash would be earth-lined under the authorized plan. The cost of implementing either plan is estimated at$14,000,000 (28) Under Plan I, annual return flows to the Souris River would decrease by about seven percent(25). This annual reduction can be attributed to a9 percent reduction in summer period return flows. Winter return flows would be unaffected. Under Plan11, summer return flows to the Souris River would be reduced 17by percent. Annual return flows would therefore be reduced by about12 percent since return flows during the winter months would be unaffected. The impact of either plan on water quality would be larger in the Souris River near Westhope than in the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie. The Red River would not be affected by either plan. No change in biological parameters is anticipated. For the Souris River at Westhope, the best-estimate predic- tions of TDS for PlanI during the peak impact period would30 be to 220 mg/l less than for the authorized plan during the months of April through October (24). TDS predictions for PlanI1 are essentially the same. For the remaining months, no change in TDS concentrations from those predicted for the authorized plan is anticipated. Predicted best-estimate concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate and hardness exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationship to the authorized plan as does TDS.No significant differences in nitrate- nitrogen concentrations from those predicted for the authorized plan are anticipated. For the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie, the implementation of either plan would result in about10 percent re- duction in "best-estimate" peak impact concentrations of TDS from those predicted to result from the authorized plan for the months of August and September (24). Concentrations during other months of the open-water season would be reducedto a lesser extent. Concen- trations during the winter months would not change from those predicted for the authorized plan. As for the Souris River at Westhope, pre- dicted concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate and hardness would be reduced in the same proportions as TDS.No significant differences in predicted levels of nitrate-nitrogen or total phosphorus are expected. Implementation of either plan would not substantially change the effects on water uses which have been predicted for the authorized plan. Reduced treatment costs may result, particularly at Souris, but these reductions are not expected to be substantial. Decreased levels of sodium and sulfate may ease somewhat the concerns expressed earlier regarding concentrationsof the constituents. Incremental 174 flood damages along the Souris River would be reduced by between $2,000 and $4,000. Potential irrigation benefits attributableto in- creased flows in the Souris River would be reduced by 500between and 800 acres. Marginal benefits to canoeing along the Souris River would also be reduced as a result of the anticipated reduction in re- turn flow volumes during thesumer months. (5) Combination I As noted previously, the Board requested detailed consideration of various combinationsof the aforementioned alternatives. Combination I consists of replacement of Class A soils (Plan I), the wetland restora- tion concept and other waterfowl production modifications, and the elimination of direct surface water connections (closed system) plus modifications to the McClusky Canal fish screen. Implementation of the combinationof alternatives would result in a 23 percent reduction in return flows to the Souris River during both the summer and winter periods. Annual return flows to the Red River would be reduced by about15 percent due to 9a percent reduction in summer return flows and 20 a percent reduction in winter return flows. Because implementation of the alternative regarding replace- ment of ClassA soils would decrease the predicted concentrations of TDS about the same amount as the new wetland restoration concept would increase them, the resultant water quality changes due to this alterna- tive are essentially similar to the water quality changes predicted for the closed system alternative discussed earlier. For the Souris Riverat Westhope, TDS concentrations during August and September would be approximately 10 percent greater than they would be under the authorized plan. Increases for the months of May through July would be less, TDS concentrations during the winter months would not differ substantially from those predicted for the authorized plan. "Best-estimate" concentrations of calcium, sodium, chloride, sul- fate and hardness are expected to exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationship to the authorized planas does TDS. "Best-estimate" concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen are expected to increase by at least 10 to 25 percent over those projected for the authorized plan. Total phosphorus concentrations are not expected to differ greatly from those computed for the authorized plan. For the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie,TDS con- centrations can be expected to increase by less than six percent. Con- centrations of major ions and hardness would exhibit similar tendencies. No significant differences in nitrate-nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations are expected. Adoption of this combination of alternatives would not signi- ficantly change the qualityof the waterin the Red River from that predicted for the authorized plan. 175 This combination of alternatives, if implemented, would offset most, if not all,of the waterfowl loss associated with GDU. As well, this combination would completely eliminate the possibility of intro- duction of fish, fish diseases (except possibly viral) and fish parasite species exotic to Manitoba. As mentioned previously, elimination of exotic biota would negate identified annual losses to commercial fishing, subsistence fishing, sport fishing and related activities. Other changes to effects of the authorized plan would be com- paratively minor. Annual municipal treatment costs could be expected to increase slightly. Increases in sodium and sulfate concentrations in the Souris River could aggravate the concerns with regard to these constituents. Elevated nitrate levels on the Souris River could increase the risk of methemoglobinemia in infants. Taste and odor problems could also increase at Souris due to increased nitrogen loading. Decreased return flow volumes would reduce previously identified incremental flood damages by about25 percent. As well, potential irrigation opportunities in the Souris River would be reduced to3,900 about acres from 5,200. In summary, implementation of this combinationof alternatives would offset most, if not all, of the authorized plan effects with regard to uses of fish and waterfowl. Changes in other effects predicted for the authorized plan would be relatively minor. (6) Combination I1 This modification combines replacement of Classsoils A (Plan I), the wetland restoration concept and other waterfowl produc- tion modifications, the elimination of direct surface water connections (closed system) plus McClusky Canal fish screen modifications, and lining of the Velva Canal (PlanI). Summer return flows to the Souris River would be reduced by approximately 34 percent and winter return flows by about22 percent. This would result in an annual reduction of about30 percent from return flow volumes predicted for the authorized plan. TheRed River would be affected to a lesser extent. Return flow volumes during the summer months would be about9 percent less than those predicted for the authorized plan. Winter return flow volumes would be reducedby about 20 percent. Annual return flow volumes would be about15 percent less . During the months of April through October "best-estimate" concentrations of TDS in the Souris River at Westhope would be similar to those predicted for the Velva Canal lining alternative.TDS concen- trations during these months would 66 be to 296 mg/l less than for the authorized plan during the peak impact period. Decreases during the other months range between4 and 11 percent. Concentrations of major 17 6 ions and hardness exhibit the same pattern, direction and relationship to the authorized plan as doesTDS. "Best-estimate" concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen on the Souris River are up38 topercent higher than those predicted for the authorized plan. Concentrations of total phos- phorus are not expected to change significantly. For the Assiniboine River above Portage la Prairie, TDS con- centrations are 12to 14 percent lower for the months of August, September and October than for the authorized plan; reductions of 2 to 9 percent would be experienced during the other months. Concentra- tions of hardness and major ions would be similarly reduced. "Best- estimate" concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen are up9 percentto higher than for the authorized plan. Concentrations of total phosphorus would not change significantly. Implementation of this alternative would have a lesser effect on the water quality of the Red River, with the most substantial dif- ferences being increased nitrate levels. As for Combination I, Combination I1 would offset most, if not all, of the fish and waterfowl related losses which would result from implementation of the authorized plan. Other changes to previously identified effects would be comparatively minor. Annual municipal treatment costs (to present water quality) for Souris would be reduced from $175,600 to $158,800 during the peak impact period. For the equil- ibrium period, these costs would be reduced from $171,200 to $144,000. For Portage la Prairie, annual treatment costs(to present water quality) would be reduced from $1,187,700 to $1,056,150 for the peak impact period and from$1,181,300 to $1,053,200 for the equilibrium period. For the Red River, annual municipal treatment costs (to present quality) would generally increase, Costs at Emerson, St. Jean Baptiste and Selkirk for the peak impact period would increase20 byto 35 percent if this combination of alternatives were implemented. Because of the method used to calculate annual costs (28), costs at Morris would decrease by about 10 percent. Treatment costs for the Manitoba Hydro plant would decrease slightly. For the equilibrium period, treatment costs would increase for all plants except Selkirk and Manitoba Hydro. These in- creases would range between6 percent and 19 percent annually. Annual treatment costs would be reduced at Selkirk by 7 percent and at Manitoba Hydro by 1 percent from those calculated for the authorized plan. Incremental flood damages along the Souris River would be re- duced by approximately 35 percent because of reduced return flows. Potential benefits to canoeing would experience similar reductions. Potential irrigation opportunities attributableto GDU would be reduced by 1,800 acres in the Souris River Basin. Along the Red River, irriga- tion opportunities would be reduced by 15 percent. 177 Elevated concentrations of nitrate and total nitrogen could increase the risk of methemoglobinemia in infants as well as contribute to taste and odor problems. No other significant changes to previously identified effects are expected. (7) Combination I11 Combination I11 is similar to CombinationI1 except that lining of the Velva Canal (Plan11) replaces lining of the Velva Canal (PlanI). This combination of alternatives would reduce annual return flows to the Souris River by about35 percent. Return flows during the summer would be reduced by about42 percent with winter return flows being about22 percent less than for the authorized plan. As for Combination11, return flows to the Red River would be affected to a lesser extent.An- nual return flow volumes to the Red River would be reduced by approximately 15 percent. Summer return flows would be reduced by9 percent, winter flows by 20 percent. The effects of this combinationof alternatives on water quality are essentially similar to those described for Combination11. For the Souris River at Westhope, TDS concentrations decrease13 by to 20 percent for the months from April through October. Other months would experience decreases of from4 to 11 percent. Concentrations of major ions and hardness would follow similar patterns. "Best- estimate'' concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen are expected to be up to 47 percent higher during the summer months. Concentrationsof total phosphorus are not expected to change significantly from those pre- dicted for the authorized plan. TDS concentrations for the Assiniboine River are predicted to decrease by2 to 13 percent with concentrations of major ions and hardness exhibiting similar tendencies. Concentrations of nitrate- nitrogen are expected to increase by up5 percentto during certain months over levels predicted for the authorized plan. Total phosphorus concentrations are not expected to change significantly. Implementation of this combination of alternatives would change water quality parameters on the Red Rivera lesser to degree than on the Assiniboine. The maximum anticipated reduction in TDS at Emerson is predicted to be 18 mg/l for the months of August and September. "Best-estimate" concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen would increase by upto 2.2 mg/l over levels predicted for the authorized plan. Total phosphorus concentrations are not expected to differ sub- stantially. As for the combinationsof alternatives discussed previously, implementation of CombinationI11 would offset most, and possibly all, of the losses to fish and waterfowl-related activities that would occur as a result of the authorized plan. Other changes to previously identi- fied effects would be minor in comparison, Changes in municipal treatment 178 costs(to present water quality) wouldbe identical to those attributed toCombination 11. Forthe peak impact period incremental treatment costs at Souriswould decrease by about 7 percentfrom those computed forthe authorized plan. Annual costs at Portage la Prairie wouldbe about16 percent less. Treatmentplants along the Red Riverwould experiencecost increases of20 to 35 percentduring the peak impact period(except Morris and Manitoba Hydro whichwould experience a decreaseof 10 percent and 1 percentrespectively). For the equili- briumperiod, annual treatment costs at Emerson, St. JeanBaptiste and Morriswould increase by6 to19 percent while costs at Selkirk would decrease byabout 7 percentfrom those computed for the authorized plan. Treatmentcosts for Manitoba Hydrowould decrease slightly. Previouslyidentified incremental flood damages along the SourisRiver would be reduced by about 40 percent if thiscombination of alternatives were implemented.Irrigation opportunities would also decrease as a resultof the reduced return flow volumes. These decreases wouldamount to2,300 acres in the Souris River Basinand to about 400 acres alongthe Red River.Potential benefits to canoeing along the Souris River would also be substantially reduced. As forCombination 11, increasednitrate concentrations along the Sourisand Assiniboine River couldincrease the riskof methemoglo- binemia ininfants. Predicted increases intotal nitrogen could contri- buteto taste andodor problems, especially at Souris. No otherchanges to the previously identified effects of the authorizedplan are anticipated. 17 9 XI. GDU EFFECTS ON USES: A SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSION Thischapter brings together all ofthe anticipated GDU effects to provide a summary ofboth the positive and the negative impacts ofthe project on Canada. It alsoextends the analysis through a discussionand classification of impacts, and through theaddition of new material whichapplies to all or several uses. Thischapter also summarizes the effects on various uses of alternativesto the authorized plan. Threemajor types of effects on uses are apparent when describingthe effects of GDU onCanada. Quantified effects are thoseto which the Committee can attach a quantitativeexpression ofthe effects of GDU either in dollarsor other terms, such as man-days of activity,acreages, numbersof fish and wildlife harvested, etc. The unquantifiedeffects are thosewhich the Committeehas identified but was unableto evaluate in numeric terms. The last category,general effects, applies to no specific useand thus has not been discussed previously. General issues dealt with here are: i. theuse of Canadian waters to assimilate GDU wastes, therebydiminishing assimilative capacity; ii. Potentialeffects of GDU on water whichcould be importedinto Southern Manitoba by way ofdomestic water transfers. The quantifiedand unquantified effects are summarized in Table D.X.I. (a) Quantified Effects Some GDU effects in all sectors h.?ve beenevaluated quantitatively. The limitationson the quantitative analyses pertaining to the various water uses were outlinedin each of the relevantchapters. These limitations, ofcourse, pertain to this chapter as well. Theeconomic lossesanticipated in the fish and wildlife sector will totalnearly $3,100,000 annually by 2000 andconstitute thelargest economic effect of GDU onCanada. Of this amount, 90 percent is attributable to losses sustained by thecommercial fishery,located on Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba and by related processingindustries. These losses are due to thepotential 180 Table D.X.I.: Summary of GDU Effectson Uses in Canada (Costsin constant 1975 dollars per year exceptwhere specified) Sector Quantified Effects UnquantifiedQuantifiedEffectsEffectsSector Municipal a. increased water supply a. increased taste andodor treatmentcosts problems at Souris and (i)in peak impact period Portage la Prairie - $59,800 to obtain (nitrate + POI+). (without thebest quality of treatment) water fromexisting b. sodium levels may cause orplanned treatment problemsfor those on plants. salt-free diets. (without - $1,899,900 to re- treatment) storecurrent water c. sulfatecannot be removed quality. by currenttreatment and (ii)in equilibrium period may cause laxative effects. - $39,800 to obtain (without R.O. treatment) thebest quality of d. increased risk of water fromexisting methemoglobinemia in orplanned treatment infants. (without R.O. plants. treatment) - $1,864,400 to re- store current water quality. Industrial a. increased water treatment a. increasein water rates coststo obtain treatment forindustries currently objectivesfor Manitoba usingmunicipal supplies. Hydro. b.reduction in the suitability (i)in peak impact period ofthe water projected - $1, 620 underbest industrial uses. estimate conditions - $93,540 under high estimate conditions (ii)in equilibrium period - $1,080under best estimate conditions - $92,190under high estimate conditions Agriculture a. 10percent increase in a. possiblephysiological leachingrequirements problems livestock for forsensitive crops along due to sulfate and nitrate Souris River. levels. b. water toirrigate an added 7,100 acres may be available. c. averageannual flood damage alongthe Souris River of $24,000. 181 Table D.X.I. continued. 1 Sector Quantified Effects UnquantifiedEffects Rural Domestic a. increased water treatment a. sodium levels may cause coststotalling $30,600. problemsforthose on salt-freediets. (without treatment) b.possible laxative effects dueto sulfate levels. (withouttreatment) c.increased risk of methemoglobinemia. (withouttreatment) Recreation a. taste andodor problems due to increased algal growths. b.beach fouling due to increasedalgal growths. c.marginal benefits to canoeingfrom increased riverflows. Fish and a. additionalpossible fish Wildlife a. $131,006 in lostsports 1 fishing-relatedrevenue. losses due to fish b.26,200 lost man-daysof parasites and diseases, sport fishing . and water quality effects c. $2,977,000 inlost onindigenous species. commercialfishing and b.additional waterfowl loss relatedrevenue. due toconversion of d.35,500 ducks, 2,700 lost grasslands and increased man-days of associated incidences of diseases. huntingand $54,000 in c.guiding and outfitting lost hunting-related losses. revenue,or d.losses ofwaterfowl in e. capitalcost of $6,460,000 Alberta andSaskatchewan. to replace waterfowlloss. f. 222,000lbs. of fishlost forsubsistence. Does notinclude possible gain of 2000 RMD's and$10,000 expenditures annuallydue to increased streamflow in the Souris River. This gain dependson water quality in the River. 182 introductionof exotic fish to the lakes. Thecommercial loss with respectto LakeWinnipeg alone is about$2,600,000 per year,about one-halfof the 1975 value of this fishery. This fishery is very importantin the local economy, supplyingincome and employment whichwould be difficult to replace in view of the limited job opportunitiesin the area. Inaddition to commercial fishing losses, GDU will causeestimated economic losses to sport fishing andhunting of $198,000 per year. As outlinedin Chapter D.VII1, theseeconomic impacts involve the assumption that reduced expenditures by huntersand fishermen would be proportional to lossesof sport fish and wildlife stocks. The figure of$198,000 may beviewed as the loss of29,500 man-days of recreation,or about 12 percentof total sport fishing and hunting participation in 1975. A loss of thismagnitude must be considered in the context of increasingtrends toward leisure time and therelatively limitedrecreational capacity of Southern Manitoba. The loss to subsistencefood supply due to expected reductions in certain species of fishtotals 222,000 poundsof fish. The losscan be evaluatedeconomically, but more than economics is involvedhere, since subsistence fishing is an integral part of the native way of life. The secondmajor economic effect of GDU will beon the municipalitieswhich rely upon streams inthe Canadian portion of thestudy area for water supply.In all cases,the costs of water treatment will increase. The totalincrease in water treatment cost to be sustained by theconcerned municipalities will be$59,000 annually in the peak impact period and $39,800 in theequilibrium period to achieve the best water quality that existing orplanned municipal treatment facilities can provide. Certain constituentssuch as nitrate and sulfatecannot be treated by currentfac.ilities and wouldremain at unacceptablelevels. In many cases, stream water quality is betterthan that called for by theManitoba water qualityobjectives, thus providing a "safetymargin" between the objectives and existing water quality. The true cost of GDU in terms of municipal water supply,therefore, is thecost of treating post-GDU waters tocurrent quality, in otherwords, restoring the existing "safety margin". The costof providing at least existing water supplyquality for all relevant quality parameters would total about $1,900,000 annualin the peak impact periodand $1,864,000 in the equilibrium period over and abovecurrent treatment costs.These costs over-estimate the economiccosts of GDU tobe borne by Canadianmunicipalities to the extent that certain water quality constituents will belowered below theirexisting levels, thereby actually improving the quality of water supplies.Total annual costs are estimated at $1,895,000. 183 A third economicimplication of GDU for Manitoba is theadded cost of industrial water treatment.Additional protectionagainst scale build-up in boilers and damage tocooling systems will costan estimated $93,500 peryear for established industriesusing river water. GDU alsohas implications for futureindustrial water use. As shown in Chapter D.IV, it cannot be established with certainty that water quality has limited or curtailedindustrial development in the study area. Nevertheless, the availability of good quality water is animportant location factorespecially for food and beverage processors, which are likelyto locate or expand inthe area. Theseplants require high quality water for their operations. Othereconomic losses include the total annual cost of $30,600 to treat ruraldomestic water suppliesand additional annualflood damage amountingto $24,000. Forrelatively salt-sensitive crops, such as carrots, onionsand beans, the increased TDS load will result in the need forapplication of additionalirrigation water toleach the additional salts throughthe soil profile. Alongthe Souris River, thisincremental requirement is estimated at 10 percent. Increasedflows in the rivers may benefit agriculture to the extent of providing water to irrigate an additional 5,200 acres of cropland in theSouris basin and 1,900 acres alongthe Red River. At the present time adequate water is availableto meet theirrigation demand. Additionaldevelopment dependson factors such as apportionmentagreements and economic conditions as well as the availability of water. (b)Unquantified Effects Several GDU effects identified by the Committee are unquantified.In some cases,existing evaluative frameworks are notsufficient to permit quantification. In others, the effectsthemselves may or may notoccur, making quantification meaningless. Taste andodor problems will beof importance in fourof the use categories: municipal, industrial, rural domestic and recreation.Higher nutrient levels in the rivers and lakes may cause a concomitantincrease in biomass. Chapters D.111 and D.IV havedealt with taste andodors problems which could occur as a result ofincreases in odor causing aquatic organisms. These problems are solvablefor the most part, but treatment is expensive. The same problem will occurto a lesser extentin the 184 recreationand rural domestic sectors, insofar as theprovision of adequatedrinking water is concerned. A secondgroup of unquantified GDU effects will occur as a resultof increased sulfate, nutrients, sodiumand nitrate concentrations.These are importantbecause of their effects upon human andanimal health and certain industrial uses. The ions includedhere are notremovable by the treatment processes now existing in the municipalities and industriesalong the Souris andAssiniboine rivers. Indications are thatacceptable standards forconcentrations of these constituents will beexceeded during boththe peak impact and the equilibrium period. Sulfate concentrations may induce laxative effects in humans and livestock, as well as makingthe water unusablefor some industrial applications.Nutrients, principally nitrogen and phosphorous, at predictedconcentrations will have no direct effects on municipalor industrial water supplies,but as notedabove may contributeto increases in biomass, causing taste andodor and coagulation-filtrationproblems. Sodium levels will beincreased inboth the peak impact and equilibrium periods. This will cause problems in water treatment facilities which use the zeolite softening.Capacity for this softening process will bereduced becauseof autoregeneration. Sodium levels will alsocause hardshipfor persons on salt-restricted diets, while the "normal" populationshould not be affected noticeably. Increased nitrate levels would increase risks associated with a sometimes fatal blood disorder in infants known as methemoglobinemia. There are alsounquantified effects in the fish, wildlife andrecreation sectors. Theeconomic damages tosport and commercialfisheries outlined in section (a) are attributableto theintroduction of rough fish species, such as gizzardshad, Utahchub and smelt, which are foreignto Manitoba waters at the present time. Additionalfish losses may beincurred with the introduction of fish diseases and fish parasites as noted in the Reportof the Biology Committee (26). Otherlosses may accrue toguiding and outfitting, locally important industries, due to the loss offish and wildlife resulting from GDU. Additional waterfowl.losses may be felt in Saskatchewanand Alberta due to waterfowl.population reductions in North Dakota. (c)General Effects In addition to the effects of GDU onspecific uses shown in Table D.X.1, GDU has some generalenvironmental effects whichhave implications for all uses.These are ofconcern in 185 evaluatingthe project's impacts upon Canada. TheCommittee believesthat these impacts shouldbe mentioned, even though available time andexisting information did not permit an analysis ofthem. Two issues are dealtwith below:the use of Canadian waters to assimilate GDU wastes andthe potential quality degradationof water forirrigation which could be imported into SouthernManitoba via domestic inter-basin transfers. Lakesand rivers in general have the capacity to assimilate some waste materials. Even wastes whichcannot be physicallyabsorbed, such as TDS, may often be diluted sufficiently so as to become unnoticeableand relatively harmless. Historically, waste assimilationhas been an important use of water, andeven todaysociety generally treats its wastes tothe point where the remainder may be safely assimilated by thereceiving water body. This characteristic of waters toabsorb wastes provides a certain degree of flexibility in using water. Water qualitystandards are set so as toprotect rivers andlakes for a given set of water uses. The quality of the water course is notpermitted to fall below (i.e. to have pollutant concentrationsin violation of) the standard prescribed by law. Throughstandards, society recognizes the assimilative capacity ofthe water. When the water qualityof a river or lake is better than thatprescribed by standards, a marginof safety, or "cushion", existsbefore standards are violated.This means thatadditional wastes, perhapsfrom expanded municipalities or industries, may beadded before the water course becomesunusable for other uses. Thisdoes not imply that assimilative capacityshould be used to the full, but only that this option is opento regulatory agencies, perhapsonly as a temporarymeasure. By usingthe Souris, Assiniboine and Red rivers in Canada for GDU returnflows and wastes, a portionof the river's assimilativecapacity will be consumed permanently. 'In several cases, since objectives will beviolated more frequently, and the geileral level ofpollutants will beelevated GDU will in effect remove all ofthe safety margin. Thus, water management flexibil- ity in Canada will becomemore limited and costs are likely to be incurredto treat effluentsfrom new industrieswhere the assimilative capacityhas already been used up by GDU. Thesecond general effect relates tothe many existing plans to move water fromthe northern parts ofthe Prairie Region tothe south for use inirrigation. Under currenteconomic conditionsthese are notfeasible, but the future outlook for food 186 supplyand demand in a worldcontext may changethis situation. Water transferred into the area fromthe north would be of reasonablyhigh quality, and thus may bedegraded to some extent by mixingwith GDU return flows. (d) -Alternatives to the Authorized Plan Sevenalternatives or modifications to the authorized planhave been examined with respect to their effects of previouslyidentified GDU impacts. The firstof these, replacement of Class A soils(Plan I andPlan 11) would not significantly changethe effects on water and relatedresources uses which have beenpredicted for the authorized plan. Lower levels ofcertain water qualityconstituents could reduce municipal treatment costs to a minorextent. Slightly lower sodium levels may ease somewhat thehardship identified for people on salt-restricted diets. Minor reductions in sulfate levels may reduce laxative effects for municipa.1and ruraldomestic users and for livestock. No other changesin previously identified effects are anticipated. The secondalternative examined, the wetland restoration conceptand other waterfowl production modifications, would offset most,if not all, of thewaterfowl loss to Manitoba predicted for theauthorized plan. Other changes to previously identified effects wouldbe less significant.Increased nitrate levels in theSouris River couldincrease the risks associated with methemoglobinemia ininfants. Municipal treatment costs at Souris would increaseto some extent as a result ofincreases in nitrates, otherchemical constituents and taste andodor. Increased concentrationsof sodium and sulfates could also aggravate the effectsof the authorized plan. As a resultof decreased return flowvolumes to the Souris River, incremental flood damageswould bereduced to about $22,000 annuallyfrom $24,000. Potential irrigationopportunities in the Souris Basin wouldbe reduced to about 4800 acres, also the result ofdecreased return flows. Elimination of direct surface water connectionsbetween theMissouri and Hudson Bay drainagebasins was the third alternative examined.Implementation of this "closed system'' alternative would eliminate thepossibility of introduction of exoticfish, fish diseases (except viral) and fish parasite speciesto Manitoba. Elimination of these exotics would negate previouslyidentified fish-related effects in Canada.Other changeswould be comparatively minor. Municipal treatment costs at Souris would increaseto some extent.Increased levels of sodiumand sulfatecould exacerbate concerns with regard to salt- 187 restricteddiets and laxative effects.Incremental flood damages would likelybe reduced to about $20,000 annually.In the Souris RiverBasin, potential irrigation opportunities wouldbe reduced by about 900 acres. Along the Red River, irrigationopportunities would bereduced by almost 600 acres. Potentialbenefits to canoeingon the Souris River would also be somewhat lower. The fourthalternative considered involves lining of theVelva Canal with an impermeable material (Plan I or Plan 11). This alternative would not substantially alter theeffects on useswhich have been predicted for the authorized plan. Minor reductionsin municipal treatment costs would result,particularly at Souris.Decreased concentrations of sodium and sulfate may ease previouslyexpressed concerns regarding salt-restricted diets and potentiallaxative effects. Incremental flood damages alongthe Souris River would bereduced byfrom 9 to 12 percent dependingupon whether all, or just a portion,of the canal is lined.Potential irrigation benefits wouldbe reduced by between 500 and800 acres. Benefits to canoeing would also be reduced in proportion to the reduction in return flow during the summer months. Variouscombinations of the aforementioned alternatives were alsoexamined. The first of these combinations includes replacementof Class A soils(Plan I), the"wetland restoration" alternative andthe "closed system'' alternative. This alternative would eliminatemost, if not all, ofthe waterfowl loss predicted forthe authorized plan. This combination would alsoeliminate thepossibility of introduction of fish,fish diseases (except viral) and fishparasite species exotic to Manitoba. As a result, mostof the fish and waterfowl - relatedlosses predicted for theauthorized plan would be eliminated. Other changes to previously identified effects wouldbe comparatively minor. Annualmunicipal treatment costs would increase to some extent. Increasedconcentrations of sodiumand sulfate in the Souris Rivermight aggravate concerns regarding these parameters. On theSouris River, increased nitrate levels could increase the risksassociated with methemoglobinemia. Increases in total nitrogencould increase taste andodor problems at Souris. Previouslyidentified incremental flood damageswould be reduced by 25 percent as would potential irrigation benefits along the SourisRiver. The secondcombination of alternatives includes replacementof Class A soils(Plan I), the"wetland restoration" alternative,the ''closed system" alternative, and lining of the VelvaCanal (Plan I). Ifimplemented, this combination would virtually eliminate the fish and waterfowl - related losses 188 predictedfor the authorized plan. Annual incremental municipal treatmentcosts at Souris(to current water quality) wouldbe reduced by 10 percentduring the peak impact period and by 16 percentunder equilibrium conditions. At Portage la Prairie, incrementaltreatment costs would be reduced byalmost 11 percent. Incrementaltreatment costs along the Red River wouldgenerally increase by 20 to 35 percentfor the peak impact. Treatment costs computed forMorris for the peak impact period would decrease by 10 percent.For the equilibrium period, treatment costs would increase by 6 to 19 percentannually for all municipalsystems exceptSelkirk where a reduction of 7 percent is anticipated. Incrementalflood damages and potential irrigation benefits alongthe Souris River would bereduced by about 35 precent as would benefitsto canoeing. Irrigation opportunities along the Red River wouldbe reduced by approximately 15 percent.Increased concentrationsof nitrate and total nitrogen could increase the riskof methemoglobinemia along the Souris and Assiniboine rivers as well as contribute to taste andodor problems. The last combination of alternativesincludes removal of Class A soils(Plan I), the "wetland restoration" concept, the "closedsystem" alternative, and lining of the Velva Canal (Plan11). Implementation of this combination of alternatives would virtually eliminate fish and waterfowl - related effects predictedfor the authorized plan. Changes inmunicipal treatment costs would beidentical to those for the previous combination. Incrementalflood damages, potential irrigation opportunities and benefitsto canoeing would be reduced by about 40 percent, in proportionto the reduction in summer returnflows. As forthe previouscombination, increased nitrate concentrations along the Sourisand Assiniboine rivers couldincrease the risk of methemoglobinemia ininfants. Increases in total nitrogen could increaset.aste and odor problems at Sourisand Portage la Prairie. 18 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, Water Quality Criteria, Technical Publication #416 , Philadelphia , 1966. American Water Works Association, Water Qualityand Treatment, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill Book Co. , New York,1971. 654 pp. American Water Works Committee,"Report on Research on Taste and Odors,"Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 62,1970. p.59. 4. Ayers, R.S. and R.L. Branson,Guidelines for Interpretation of Water Qualityfor Agriculture, Agricultural Extension, mimeographed, University of California , Riverside , 1974. 5. Bernstein, L., L.E. Francois,and R.A. Clark, "Salt Tolerances of OrnamentalShrubs and Ground Covers," Journal of AmericanSociety of HorticultureSciences, Vol. 97,84, 1972, pp. 550-556. 6. Brunskill, G.J., S.E.M. Elliottand P.Campbell, Speculations on the Future of LakeWinnipeg, with specific reference to Eutrophication, 1975, unpublished,(included in the Report of theBiology Committee, Vol. 11, see reference26). 7. CanadaDepartment of Agriculture, Handbook For the Classification of Irrigated Land in the Prairie Provinces, Regina , 1964. 8. CanadaDepartment of Agriculture, P.F.R.A., Souris River Development: Economic Appraisal of ProposedCoulter and Gainborough Dams, Preliminary Report , Regina , 1967. 9. Canada-Manitoba,Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers StudyBoard, TechnicalReport Appendix 7, recreation andArcheological Studies. Preparedby P.M. Associates,June 1972. 10. Chang, S.L., Richard L. Woodward, andPaul W. Kubler,"Survey of Free-living Nematodesand Amebas inMunicipal Supplies," Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 52,1960. p. 613. 11. Charron, J.E., A HydrologicalStudy of the Selkirk Area, Manitoba. Scientific Series #8 , Inland Waters directorate, Water ResourcesBranch, Ottawa , Canada , 1974. 12. Coligado, M.C., Risk analysis ofWeekly Climatic Data for Agricultural andIrrigation Planning for Brandon, Mordenand Winnipeg, Technical Bulletins #34, 35and 36, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario,1968. 190 13. Department of theEnvironment, Guidelines for Water QualityObjectives andStandards, Technical Bulletin 867, Inland Waters Branch, Ottawa, 1972. 14. Department of Mines,Resources, and Environmental Management, Proposed InterimObjectives of Water Quality,Province of Manitoba(Unpublished), Winnipeg,Manitoba, June 1976. 15. Department of Regional Economic Expansion, TheCanada Land Inventory, Land CapabilityClassification for Outdoor Recreation Report #6, Ottawa, Ontario,1969. 16. Ducks1Jnlimited (Canada), Summary of Ducks- UnlimitedWaterfowl Pro- duction Areas in GDU Manitoba , Winnipeg,Manitoba, 1976.- 17. EnvironmentCanada, Economic Damages Resultinpfrom Water Pollution, June 1974, (Unpublished). 18. EnvironmentCanada (inconjunction with relevant Departments of Provinces),National Inventory: Municipal Waterworks & Wastewater Systems,Inland Waters Directorate,(Unpublished), 1975. 19. Gillispie, E., Water: Problemsand Cure, High and Low Pressure Boilers.Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, Manitoba, February, 1974. 20. Haywood, H.E., and D. Huadleigh,"Plant Growth inSaline and Alkali Soils: in Advances in Agronomy by A. E. Norman et al., Academic Press, " Inc. New York,1949. 21. Hazardous Materials AdvisoryCommittee, Nitrogenous Compounds in the Environment, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, December 1973, pp.159-173. 22. Healthand Welfare Canada, Canadian Drinking Water Standardsand Ob- jectives,1968. Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1969.p. 14. 23. International Red River PollutionBoard, International Joint Commission, Minutesof the Thirteenth Meeting, FortFrances, Ontario, August 12, 1975. 24. InternationalGarrison Diversion Study Board, Report of the Water QualityCommittee, Appendix A. 1976. 25. InternationalGarrison Diversion Study Board, Reportof the Water QuantityCommittee, Appendix By 1976. 26. InternationalGarrison Diversion Study Board, Reportof the Biology Committee,Appendix Cy 1976. 27. InternationalGarrison Diversion Study Board, Reportof the Uses Committee,Appendix D, 1976. ~ ~ 28. InternationalGarrison Diversion Study Board, )IReDortof the~~~- EngineeringCommittee, Appendix E, 1976. 191 29. Malony, T.E,, "Research on AlgalOdor," Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol.55, 1963, p. 581. 30. ManitobaDepartment of Agriculture and Canada Department of Agriculture, ManitobaSoil Survey, Reports #3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18, Winnipeg,Manitoba, 1940,1943, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1961,1964, 1972 and 1973, respectively. 31. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Development Document forProposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New SourcePerformance Standardsfor the Beet Sugar,Flat Glass and Basic Fertilizer Chemical Industries,Washington, D.C., 1973. 32. ManitobaDepartment of Renewable Resources and Transportation Services, ManitobaFisheries Fact Book, Development and Extension Services, Winnipeg , Nanitoba, 1974. 33. ManitobaDepartment of Agriculture, Yearbook: Manitoba Agriculture, 1974 and 1975 (Annual),Winnipeg, Manitoba. 34. ManitobaDepartment of Mines, Resourcesand Environmental Management, Water ResourcesDivision, Planning Branch, Lake Manitoba Supply Canal, Winnipeg,Manitoba, 1968. 35. ManitobaDepartment of Recreation, Tourism and Cultural Affairs (MDRTCA),Summary of FileReports on Outfitting and Special Desig- nations,Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1976. 36. ManitobaDepartment of Renewable Resources and Transportation Services (MDRRTS), Summary of FileReports onRecreation, Commercial and Sub- sistence Uses ofFish and Wildlife in Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba 1976. 37. MDRRTS, Summary of Walleye,Sauger and Whitefish Commercial Harvest From LakesWinnipeg and Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1971-1975. 38. Manitoba Water fowl TechnicalCommittee, Manitoba Breeding Waterfowl StatusReport, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1976,54 Pp. 39. Mass, E.V. and G.J. Hoffman,Crop SaltTolerance - Current Assessment, U.S. SalinityLaboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture,Riverside, California 92502 , 1976. 40. McCabe, Leland J., "HealthEffects of Sodium, Calcium and Hardness". Journal of American Water Works Association, Vo1.64, 1972. 41. McKee, J.E. and H.W. Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, California State Water QualityControl Board, Sacramento, Publication No. 3-A, 1963. 42. MiltonFireman, Quality of Water for Irrigation, University of CaliforniaAgriculture Extension Service, Davis, California, 1960. 192 43.Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota State Regulations - Rules,Regulations, Classifications and Water Standards, St. Paul, Minnesota,1973. 44.Moore, E.W., PhysiologicalEffects of the Consumption of SalineDrink- ing Water, Bulletinof Subcommittee on Water Supply,National Research Council,January 10, 1952,Appendix B, pp.221-227. 45.National Academy of Sciencesand National Academy ofEngineering, Committeeon Water Quality Criteria, 1972 Water Quality Criteria, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, FJashington, D.C., March,1973. 46.National Academy of Sciences,National Research Countil, Food and NutritionBoard, Sodium Restricted Diets, Publication#325, Washington, D.C. , 71pp. 47.NationaIl Academy of Sciences,"Nutrients and Toxic Substances in Water forLivestock and Poultry," A Report of the Sub-committeeon Nutrientand Toxic Elements in Water, Washington, D.C., 1974. 48.North Dakota State Department of Health, Standards of Surface Water Quality for State ofNorth Dakota, Bismarck, North Dakota, 1973. 49. O'Malley, M., "How OntarioSupplies Winnipeg's Water" in Canadian Geographical review, September1975, p. 31. 50. OntarioMinistry of theEnvironment, Guidelines and Criteria for Water Management inOntario, Toronto, 51. OntarioMinistry of Tourism and Recreation, Tourism and Outdoor RecreationalParticipation Study (TORPS), QueensPark, Toronto, June1973. 52. P.M. Associates,Lake Winnipeg Recreation Demand Study,Manitoba Researchand Planning Branch, Department of Tourism,Recreation and CulturalAffairs, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1975. 53. ParksCanada, Trends in Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities, OutdoorRecreation Section, Natural and Historical Parks Branch, August1973. This is TechnicalNote i122 ofthe Canadian Outdoor Recreational Demand Study (CORDS). 54. Peterson, N.L., Sulfates in 3rinking Water, OfficialBulletin, North Dakota Water and SewageWorks Conference, Vol. 18, April-May1951. pp.6-7, 11. 55. Portage la Prairie Irrigation Committee, Irrigation Feasibility in Portage la Prairie Area, Winnipeg,Manitoba , 1970. 56. Power, P.S., Estimates of FutureParticipation in Water-based RecreationIn the Boundary River Basinsto 1980, Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario,1975. 193 57. Reportof the International Joint Commissionon theCo-operative Developmentof the Pembina River Basin,Queen's Printer, Ottawa, Ontario,1967. 58. Rhoades, J.D. and S.D. Merrill, Assessingthe Suitability of Water ForIrrigation: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches, U.S. Salinity Laboratory,Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., Riverside, California , 1975. 59. Romano, A.H. and R.S. Safferman,"Studies on Actinomycetesand their Odors ,I' Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 55,1963. p.169. 60. Saskatchewan - NelsonBasin Board, Water Supplyfor the Saskatchewan - NelsonBasin, Vol. 4 , Prairie Provinces Water Board,Regina, 1972,p. 159. 61. Saskatchewan - NelsonBasin Board, Water Supplyfor the Saskatchewan - NelsonBasin, Appendix 3, Project Catalogue, Saskatchewan, 1972 (i)Assiniboine River to Pembina TriangleDiversion (ii) Lakeof the Woods to Pembina TriangleDiversion. (iii) LakeWinnipegosis to UpperAssiniboine Diversion 62. Sawyer, Clair N., Chemistry for SanitaryEngineers, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.,1960, 367pp. 63. Sigworth, E.A. , "Control of Taste andOdors in Water Supplies," Journalof American Water Works Association, Vol. 49,1957, p. 1507. 64. Souris-Red-Rainy River BasinsCommission, Souris-Red-Rainy River BasinsComprehensive Study: TheCombined Report (SRRRB), Holiday Mall, ProfessionalCenter, Moorehead, Minnesota 56560, 1972, pp.216 (Main Report, pp. 128 (Appendices). 65. SRRRB Study,Appendix 5, Recreation and Preservation, 1972. 66. SRRRB Study,Appendices I and J, Fish and Wildlife, vel. 5, 1972, pp.173 and 183. 67. Statistics Canada,Cane and Beet SugarProcessors (National Figures) 1954,1961 and 1974, Catalogue #32-222. (All Statistics Canada Publications are published by Queen'sPrinter, Ottawa and are avail- ablefrom Information Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.) 68. Statistics Canada, 1971 Censusof Canada: Population of Unincor- poratedSettlements, Catalogue #?2-771. 69. Statistics Canada, 1971 Census of Canada:Geography, Land Areas and Densities of StatisticalUnits, Catalogue #98-701. 194 70.Statistics Canada, 1961 Census ofCanada: Population: Unincorporated Villages,Catalogue 892-528. 71. Statistics Canada,1961 Cansus of Canada: Population, Historical 1901-1961,Catalogue #92-539. 72. Statistics Canada, Distilleries (Manitoba),1954, 1961, 1974, Catalogue#32-206. 73. Statistics Canada, Fruitand Vegetable Processing Industries (Nanitoba 1952,1961 and 1972, Catalogue i132-218. 74. Statistics Canada,Glass and Glass ProductsManufacturers (National Figures),1955, 1961, 1972, Catalogue 1144-207. 75. Statistics Canada, Householdand Family Projections for Canada and the Provincesto 2001, Catalogue #91-517 Occasional, November 1P75. 76. Statistics Canada,Manufacturing Industries of Canada (PrairieProvinces), 1952.1961 and 1972. Catalogue i/ 31-207. 77. Statistics Canada,Manufacturers of Mixed Fertilizers(National Figures), 1961and 1972, Catalogue # 46-220. 78. StatisticsCanada, Population Projections for Canadaand theProvinces, 1972-2001,Catalogue # 91-514 Occasional,June 1974. 79. Statistics Canada,Technical Report on Population Projections for Canada andthe Provinces, 1972-2001, CataloRue 891-516 Occasional,July 1975. 80. Statistics Canada,Wineries (Manitoba), 1954, 1961, 1974, Catalogue #32-207. 81. United States Departmentof Agriculture, Agricultural Information, Salt Toleranceof Plants, Bulletin No. 283,Washington, D.C., 1964. 82. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture,Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils, Handbook #60,Washington, D .C. , 1954. 83. United States Departmentof Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 1'1448. 84. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, National Interim PrimaryDrinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR 141,Federal Register. Vol.40, No. 248, December 24,1975. 85. United States OutdoorRecreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC), NationalRecreation Survey, ORRRC Report#19, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C., 1962. 86. United States PublicHealth Service, Drinking Water Standards,1962, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, 1962, pp. 7, 47-50. 195 87. Water QualityObjectives Subcommittee, Canada - United States Committee. Specific Water QbalityObjectives for the International Waters in the Saint John River Basin, Ottawa, Ontario , 1975. 88. Winton,E.F., R.G. Tardiffand L.J. McCabe, "Nitrate inDrinking Water" Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 63, No. 2, 1971. 89. Tate, D.M., Industrial Water Demand Forecasting,Inlands Water Directorate,Environment Canada, Social Science Research Series #9, Ottawa, Ontario,1972. 90. Sonmor, L.G., "SeasonalConsumptive Use of Water byCrops inSouthern Albertaand its Relationship to Evaporation,"Canadian Journal of SocialScience, Vol. 43,1963. pp. 287-297. 91. "Commercial Production of Wild Rice" Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota,Extension Folder #284, Undated. 92. EnvironmentCanada, Survey of Industrial Water Use, (Unpublished), Inland Waters Directorate,1972. 93. ManitobaDepartment of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management, Water WithdrawalPermits, (Annual). 94. Scott'sIndustrial Directory, Prairie Region, 1972, Penstock Publications,Montreal, 1973. 196 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS CITED 101.Bernstein, Dr. L., U.S. SalinityLaboratory, Riverside, California 102. Van Schaik, M.J., CanadaDepartment of Agriculture,Lethbridge, Alberta 103.Derkson, A., MDRRTS, Winnipeg,Manitoba 104.Balkan., P., NorthDakota U.S.D.A., SCS Office,Bismarck 105. Lillie., L. (Dr.),Chief Pathologist, Veternary Services Branch, ManitobaDepartment of Agriculture, Winnipeg, Manitoba 106.Harrison, J.R., Toxicologist, CanadaDepartment of Health and Welfare, Ottawa 107. Filteau, R., Farm Diversification Specialist, ManitobaDepartment ofAgriculture, Winnipeg, Manitoba 108.Nedohin, B., AgriculturalRepresentative, Manitoba Department of Agriculture, Melita 109.Rigaux, Dr. L., Facultyof Agriculture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,Manitoba 110. Jones, P., GrasslandSpecialist, Manitoba Department of Agriculture, Winnipeg,Manitoba 111. Forsbert, D.E., Directorof Research, Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation,Winnipeg, Manitoba 112. Johnson, W.I.R., EconomicsBranch, Manitoba Department of Agriculture,Winnipeg, Manitoba 113. Harrison, R.W., PlanningEngineer, Water Resources Division, ManitobaDepartment of Mines,Resources and Environmental Management,Winnipeg, Manitoba 114. Lewis, G.D., ResourcePlanning Officer, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada, Regina, Saskatchewan 115. Cameron, D., PublicInformation Assistant, Distilled Spirits Council.,Washington, D.C. 116. Rutulis, M., SeniorHydrogeologist, Groundwater Section, Manitoba Department of Mines,Resources and Environmental Management, Winnipeg,Manitoba 197 117. Griffin, E., Water Services Branch, Manitoba Departmentof Agriculture, Winnipeg, Manitoba 118. Allison, E., Water Quality Analyst, Prairie Provinces WaterBoard 119. Pettipas, L., Historic Resources Branch, Manitoba Departmentof Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs 198 INTERNATIONAL GARRISON DIVERSIONSYUDY BOARD APPENDIX D REPORT OF THE USES COMMITTEE PART TWO : ATTACHMENTS INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1976 200 ATTACHMENT D.I.1. APPROVED PLAN OF STUDY: USES COMMITTEE Introduction The Uses Committee was developed as a of part six study committees assigned to prcvide information and recommendations to the International Garrison Diversion Study Board to answer the questions raised by the two governments relative to the transboundary effects of the completion and operation of the Garison Diversion Unit (GDU) in North Dakota. Further, to make recommendations of measures that might be taken, if necessary, to assist the two governments in insuring that the project will not cause injury to health or property in Canada. The Uses Committee will describe present water uses and projected uses. The effects of water quality of these uses will be described and the impacts on use of cluality and quantity changes caused by the GDU will be evaluated. Terms of Reference 1. To compile data and information on the present uses of water in the study area. 2. To describe the effects of present water quality and quantity with particular emphasis on uses in Canada. 3. To determine the nature and extent of the effectsof GDU with particular reference on present water uses in Canada. 4. To forecast possible water uses in the Canadian portion of the study area, and the anticipated effectsGDU of on those uses. Study Scope The geographic area of the study includes the drainage area directly affected by GDU flows (Figure D.I.1): the lower Souris, Sheyenne and Wild Rice basins of the United States, the main stem of the Red River, and the lower Souris, lower Assiniboine and Red basins in Canada, as well as Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. This is the area that can reasonably be expected to be affected by irrigation return flows, canal seepage losses and operational wastes. The inventory of present uses will cover the entire study area, but the emphasisof the study will be on the effectsof Garrison Diversionon the Canadian portion of the study. A detailed evaluation will be carried out on the effects of GDU on current uses in Canada, with a secondary examination of effects upon possible uses over 10-a and 25-year time span. 201 Organization and Coordination Committee co-chairmen will announce and schedule meetings as needed to meet the time schedule assignedfor the study. The minutes of meetings of the Committee willkept beby a secretary from the host country and copies made available to all members following each meeting. Copies of the minutes will also be given tc each of the two liaison Study Board members and Board secretaries. Decisions reached within the Committee will be by consensus. It will be the duty of Committee members to attend all meetings and furnish their assigned input in a timely manner. Notification must be given the Chairman if a member is not toable be in attendance. Authorized absence or alternate member participation on behalfof an official member is permitted. Tasks and Methodology Data from the Souris and Red River basins in the United States will be taken from the Souris-Red-Rainy Basins Comprehensive Study Report completed in :L972 and other sources. Canadian data will be compiled from available sources. The Uses Committee will analyze the base data and provide projections. Data will be analyzed and exchanged with other study committees as needed to meet the objectives included in the plan of study. Projections will be provided for1985 and 2000. Present condition for all data input is meant to be updated to represent an approximate January 1, 1976 time frame. Terminology will be consistent with the SRRRB Study unless otherwise noted. TASK 1 Present water uses and projection of uses for: A. Red River, Sheyenne, and Wild Rice River (to Canadian/U.S. border) Description - Physical - Climate Water Use and Projections (same reporting items as above) 1. Municipal; 2. Industrial; 3. Agricultural; 4. Domestic; 5. Wildlife; 6. Recreation; 7. Fish; and 8. Other. 202 B. Red River (from Canadian/U.S. border to Lake Winnipeg) Description - Physical - Climate Water Use and Projections (same reporting items as above) C. Souris River (from confluence with Wintering River to Canadian/U.S. border) Description - Physical - Climate Water Use and Projections (same reporting itemsas above) D. Souris River (from Canadian/U.S. border to confluence with Assiniboine P-iver) Description - Physical - Climate Water Use and Proiections (same reporting items as above) E. Assiniboine River (from confluence with Souris River to confluence with Red River) Description - Physical - Climate Water Use and Projections (same reporting items as above) F. Lake Winnipeg Description - Physical - Climate Water Use and Projections Water Quality and Total Loading (same reporting items as above) G. Lake Manitoba and Delta Marsh Description - Physical - Climate Water: Use and Proiections Water Quality and Total Loading (same reporting items as above) Inputs: 1. The SRRRB Study will be updated to January1, 1976, identifying uses in United States. 2. Canadian members will gather data on uses in Canada.The inventory data are to be completed by February15, 1977. 203 Coordination: 1. u.S. and Canadian committee members will insure compatibility of all data. 2. Furnish inventory data to Water Quality Committee. 3. Furnish Water Quality and Water Quantity Committees with list of stations for which water quality and flow data are needed. TASK 2 Describe effects of present water quality and quantity on present uses in Canada. Inputs : 1. Data on water treatment costs. 2. Provide information on uses, foregone because of present water quality or quantity constraints. 3. Data on constituent levels that limit a ofuse water. 4. Information from Canada about water quality criteriaof present uses of water. 5. Provide water quality objectives or standards for all water -- Canada, North Dakota, and Minnesota. Organization: 1. Most of the input will be from Canadian members, coordinating with U.S. members. 2. Coordinate with Water Quality and Quantity Committees with above-suggested format and reporting points. 3. Gather data on constituent levels and effects. TASK 3 Describe effects of projected water quantity and present quality on reasonably anticipated uses in Canada without GDU. 204 1. Water quality data from Water Quality Committee. 2. Water quantity data (present and projected to2000) from Water Quantity Committee. Organization: Both U.S. and Canadian members-- application of water quality and water quantity data and constraint levelsto projected uses. TASK 4 Describe impacts of water quality and quantity changes caused by GDU on Canada. Inputs : 1. Water quality data (current with GDU projections). 2. Water quantity data (projections with GDU) from Water Quantity Committee. 3. Use information form above categories for analysis. 4. Express impacts in terms of nature, extent of, location, economic and other. 5. Provide information on alternatives for mitigationof GDU from the Engineering Committee. Organization: Committee members-- U.S. and Canadian -- to cooperatively analyze costs and benefits. TASK 5 Evaluate effects on water uses of possible modifications, alterations, or adjustments toGDU plan. 205 USES COMMITTEE Canadian Section American Section H.G. Mills (Chairman) N. McClure (Chairman) Environment Canada United States Departmentof Agriculture R.E. Smith D.D. Schulz Canada Department of Agriculture North Dakota State Water Commission R.B. Oetting D. Vodehnal Manitoba Departmentof Renewable United States Environmental Resources & TransportationServices Protection Agency T.A. Sandercock E.W. Steuke, Jr. Manitoba Departmentof Agriculture United States Fish and Wildlife Service L. J. Whitney J.W. Keys I11 Manitoba Department of Mines,Resources United States Bureau of Reclamation and Environmental Management W.M. Ward B.C. Schade Manitoba Departmentof Mines, Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Environmental Management D.M. Tate K. Demke Environment Canada North Dakota State Department of Health J. Gander (Study Board Liaison) A. Fisk (Study Board Liaison) Ecnoomic Council of Canada United States Departmentof Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service H.K. Naik (Report Coordinator) Environment Canada 206 ATTACHMENT D.III.l. RED RIVER: MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA, 1975,1985 and 2000 (Figuresin U.S. Gallons per Day) System Water Used (rngd) DesignTreatment Projected Water Use Co mm unity Ave. Community (rngd) 2000 1985 1975 (County) Ground Surface Total Max.(mgd) PopulationPopulation Population ALVARADO .075 .075.075 Iron & Manganese 304 309 317 (Marshall) .113 removal,Filtration, (0.08 mgd) (0.08 mgd) Flouridation CLIMAX 0.04 0.0310.04 Flouridation 241 217 190 (Polk) 0.057 (0.04 mgd) (0.04 mgd) DILWORTH 0.40 0.150.40 Flouridation 2,479 3,308 2,802 (Clay) 0.25 Chlorination (0.43 Mgd) (0.43 mgd) h, 0 EAST GRAND ---- 1.251.25 Sedimentation 8,098 10,6449,097 FORKS 1.50 Softening,Filtration (1.35 mgd) (1.51 mgd) (Polk) Chlorination,Flouridation HALLOCK .176 .176.176 Sedimentation 1,475 1,467 1,471 (Kitt son) .264 Softening , Filtration (0.18 mgd) (0.18 mgd) Chlorination,Flouridation HALSTAD 0.045 0.0450.055 Iron & Manganese 590 575 555 (Norman) 0.070 removal,Aeration, (0.045 mgd) (0.045 mgd) Filtration,Chlorination, Flouridation HENDRUM 0.030 0.030.03 Flouridation 310 308 305 (Norman) 0.05 (0.03 mgd) (0.03 mgd) KENNEDY 0.040 .040.040 Chlorination 422 421 420 .060 Flouridation (0.04 mgd) (0.04 mgd) CONTINUED (ATTACHMENT D.III.l CONTINUED) System Water Used (mgd) DesignTreatment Projected Water Use Community Ave. (mgd) 2000 1985 1975 (County) Ground SurfaceTotal Max. (rngd) PopulationPopulation Population 1.50 1.501.50 3.00 2.66 Softening,Flouridation 32 ,972 40,079 52 ,393 6.20 Chlorination, Water (7.40 mgd) (8.20 mgd) Stabilization,Chemical 5.50 mgd* 6.15 mgd* Taste andOdour Control *(surface water sources) Recarbonation NIELSVILLE .027 ---- ,027 0.033 Chlorination 147 113 132 (Polk) 0.070 Flouridation (.027 mgd) (.027 mgd) OSLO "" 0.040.04 0.054 Softening,Filtration 458 430 5 05 N 0 (Marshall) 0.111 Flouridation (0.043 mgd) (.048 mgd) W PERLEY .005 ---- .005 0.007 Flouridation 137 (.005 mgd) (.005 mgd) (Norman) 0.011 SHELLY .005 ---- .055 0.055 No ne 240 156 2 03 (Norman) Unknown (0.05 mgd) (0.05 mgd) 1. Public Water Supply Data: Revised 1973, MinnesotaDepartment of Health. 2. MinnesotaDepartment of Health Records. 3. MinnesotaAnalysis and Planning System, (Hoyt and Nelson projections), Institute of Agriculture, University of Minnesota, St. Paul,Minnesota. 4. Projected Water Need = Projectedpopulation - currentpopulation x 100 gallons/day.System designsfor committee with declining projected populations were consideredadequate as they currently exist. ATTACHMENT D.III.2 RED RIVER: NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA, 1975,1985 and 2000 (Figures in U.S. Gallonsper Day) System Water Used (mgd) DesignTreatment Projected Water Use Community Ave. (mgd) 2000 1985 1975 (County)Ground Surface Total Max. (rngd) PopulationPopulation Population FARGO 7.9 "" 7.88 7.88 Chlorination,Flouridation 88,000 66,000 57,500 (Cass) 25.0 Softening (Lime-SodaAsh) (9.25) (11.3) Filtration, Taste andOdour Control,Recarbonation r4 GRAND FORKS "" 4.016.68 -6.7 Chlorination,Flouridation 67,500 58,500 52,500 (Grand Forks) Red R. 9.0 Softening (Lime-Soda Ash), (7.45) ( 8.6) 2.67 Filtration, Taste andOdour Red L.R. Control,Recarbonation (Includes Grand Forks Air ForceBase) DRAYTON "" .25 * 25 .25 Chlorination,Flouridation 1,150 1,300 1,520 (Pembina) .75 Softening , (Lime-SodaAsh) ( -27) ( .29) Filtration, Taste and Odour "Servesapproximately 600 addi- Control,Recarbonation tionalpeople in surrounding towns CASS RURAL WATER USERS (not in operation)-- Chlorination,Iron and Mang (Cass) Ground(Cass) Water Supply .72 removal(Filtration) ATTACHMENT D.III.3. SHEYENNE RIVER: NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA,1975, 1985 and 2000 (Figures in U.S. Gallons per Day) System WaterUsed (mgd) Design Treatment Projected Water Use Community Ave. (mgd) Ave. Community 2000 1985 1975 (County) Ground Surface Total Max.(mgd)PopulationTotalPopulationSurface (County)PopulationGround HARVEY .20 "" .20 .20 Chlorination,Flouridation 2,7502,550 2,360 (Wells) 1.08 Softening(Lime-Soda Ash) ( ,221 ( .24) Filtration, Recarbonation SHNENNE .045 "".045 .045 Chlorination 360* 340 320 (Eddy) .28 *Serves 150 additional people. IQ F PEKIN .004 "" .004 .004 Chlorination 110 100 80 3 (Nelson) .043 MCVILLE ,047 MCVILLE "" .047 .047 Chlorination690 640 600* (Nelson) *Serves 100 additional people. "" .10 .10 Flouridation,Chlorination 1,7501,6201,500 Iron RemovalIron(Aeration- ( .11> ( .12) Filtration) VALLEYCITY "" .97 .97 .97 Chlorination,Flouridation 8,000 8,900 10,000 (Barnes) 4.0 Softening(Lime-SodaAsh), (1,221(1,081 Filtration, Taste and Odour Control, Recarbonation KATHRYN .029 "".029 .029 Chlorination 70loo* 90 (Barnes) .057 *Serves 50 additional people. CONTINUED ATTACHMENT D.III.3 CONTINUED:SHEYENNE RIVER: NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA,U.S., 1975,1985 and 2000 (Figures inU.S. Gallons per Day) System WaterUsed (mgd) Design Treatment Projected Water Use Community Ave. (mgd) Ave. Community 2000 1985 1975 (County)Ground Surface Total Max.(mgd) PopulationPopulation Population LIBSON .15 ---- .15 __.15 Chlorination,Flouridation 2,100 2 ,300 2,500 (Ransom) .28 IronRemoval (Zeolite) , (.(.I9117) Filtration KINDRED .049 ---- .049.049 Chlorination,Iron 510*600 550 (0.53) (0.58)(0.53) P (Cass) Removal (Aeration- P Filtration) *Serves 500 additional people. WEST FARGO .55 ----.55 .55 Chlorination 6,5006; 10,50016 ,000 (Cass) 2.0 (Approx.) (1.2)(.83) *Serves 1,500 additional people. HARWOOD .015 ---- .015.015 Chlorination650 600 548 .28 ( .030) (.040) ATTACHMENT D.III.4. WILD RICE RIVER: NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA, 1975,1985 and 2000 (Figuresin U.S. Gallonsper Day) System Water Used (mgd) Design Treatment Projected Water Use Com m unity Ave. Community (mgd) 1985 1975 2000 (County) GroundTotal Surface Max.(mgd) PopulationPopulationPopulation COGSWELL .016 ---- .016.016 None 150 190 175 (Sargent) .oa6 FORMAN .046 ---- .046.046 Chlorination,Softening 600"780 690 (Sargent) .144 (Lime-Soda Ash),Filtration (.052) (.057) Recarbonation *Serves150 additional people. SWINNER .10 "" .10 -.10 No ne 1,4501,060 2,000 (Sargent) .25 ( .20) 10 P 10 RUTLAND .016 ---- .016 .016 Chlorination 230 24 0 250 (Sargent) .158 ( .017) ( .018) HANKINSON .090 ---- .09.090 - None 1,100 1,060 1,000 (Richland) .59 LIDGERWOOD .10 "" .10 __.10 Chlorination 1,2001,090 1,010 (Richland) .36 (.11) ( .12) MOORETON .009 --" -009.009 Chlorination (Richland) .13 WYNDMERE .050 ---- .050 .050 Chlorination,Flouridation560 520 6 00 (Richland) .144 Iron Removal (Aeration- (.054) ( .058) Filtration) CONTINUED ATTACHMENT D.III.4 CONTINUED: WILD RICE RIVER: NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA, 1975,1985 and 2000 (Figuresin U.S. Gallonsper Day) Sys tem Water Used (mgd) -Design Treatment Projected Water Use C omm unity Ave. Community (mgd) 1985 1975 2000 (County)Ground SurfaceTotal Max.(mgd) PopulationPopulation Population MANTADOR .008 ----Chlorination .008 .008 91 95 100 (Richland) (.009) (.01) ABERCROMBIE .016 .016---- .016 None 262310 290 N (Richland) ( .017) ( .018) P W BARNEY .003 ---- .003 .003 Chlorination,Flouridation 85 90 80 (Richland) .072 WALCOTT .010 ---- 010 Chlorination.010 180 170 166 (Richland) .072 ( .on> ( .012) ATTACHMENT D.III.5. SOURISRIVER: NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL WATER DATA, 1975,1985, and 2000 (Figures in U.S. Gallonsper Day) System Water (mgd)Used DesignTreatment Projected Water Use Communi t y Ave . (mgd) 2000 1985 1975 (County)Ground SurfaceTotal Max.(mgd) PopulationPopulation Population TOWNER .08 ---- .08 -.08 None 850 860 870 (McHenry) .504 N F F- UPHAM .027 ---- .027 .027 None 240272 255 (McHenry) .28 WESTHOPE .075"" .075 .075 Chlorination,Softening, 710 750 730 (B ot tineau)(Bot .216 (Lime-Soda Ash) , Filtration, (.078) (.080) Taste andOdour, Recarbonation APPENDIX D.III.6. POPULATION AND WATER USE DATA FOR STUDY AREA MUNICIPALITIES WITH SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES, 1974-75 Pop 'n To tal Cap/ * Pop'nServed Water UsedDomestic Commercial IndustrialInstit'l Day '000 ImperialGallons Per Day Emerson 800 650 60.0 48 .O 4.6 - 7.4 92 St. JeanBaptiste 550 292 20.5 15.4 3.1 - 2.0 70 Morris 1,500 1,400 113.2 105.3 5.7 - 2.2 81 Selkirk 10,000 9,800 1,386.8 693.8 346.4 207.7 142 138.9 h, P VI Souris Souris 1,674 1,500124.3 138.1 11.0 1.4 1.4 92 Assiniboine Portage la Prairie 13,012 13,012 1,298.81,666.0 166.6 66.7 128 133.4 * Daily Water Used perCapita per Day Source:National Inventory of Municipal Water Supplyand Waste Treatment,Environment Canada, unpublished. ATTACHMENT D.III.7A. SUB-PROVINCIAL POPULATION FORECASTS: METHODOLOGY The methodology employed for projecting population involved the disaggregationof provincial projections into census and settlement units. Statistics Candda has prepared a series of provincial projections *(for 1972-2001) each with varying assumptions of fertility and migration (78, 79). Projections "A", "B", and 'IC" were used here representing the high, medium and low projections respectively, Since these projections were available for provincial areas only, the data had to be disaggregated into census units. Firstly, the population of census divisions at five-year intervals from 1951 to 1971 was traced. These population figures were transformed into proportions of the provincial population for each point in time. Assuming that these trends would conceivably continue to 2001, the proportions were then projected to 1976, 1986 and 2001. These future proportions were applied to the Statistics Canada provincial projections, the result being projections of census division populations. The method used to project census division proportion is outlined below along with a numerical example. ExampleSouris River Basin, Census Division 7 1976 1986 1976 2001 A (high) 1,011,900 119,300 1 249,200 B (medium) 999,300 1,044,800 1,066,300 Provincial c (low) 995,400 1,006,100 972,000 Proj ec t ions Proportion (X) of Manitoba Population CensusDivision 1971195619611966 7 1971 5.25 5.40 5.37 5.455.37 5.40 5.25 5.31 To project these proportions a five-year average growth rate was calculated (in this example1 percent or a factor of 10063) and applied to the proportions through theuse of a computer program which gave projected proportions at five-year intervals to 2006. In 1976 for example, the proportion would be 5.34. These figures, however, were not used directly in making the population forecasts. Instead, the projected proportions were arranged in ten-year average groups to reduce the variations between census years and offset the uncertainty of long-term projections. 216 1951-611955-56 1961-71 (1966-76)(1971-81) (1976-86) (1811-91) 5.41 5.38 5.37 5.34 5.38 5.41 5.38 5.34 5.37 5.345.38 5.41 (1986-96)(1991-2001) (1996-2006) 5 .45 5.48 5.51 5.48 5.45 The figuresin brackets above were arrived at fromthe projection ofthe five-year proportions. The underlinedproportions were appliedto the projected Statistics Canada projectionsfor 1975,1986 and 2001 respectively(the mid-point of 1981-91 being 1.986 and themid-point of 1996-2006 being 2001). Thus,the population of CensusDivision 7 in 1986 wouldbe 60,554 (or .0541 x 1,119,300) and in 2001 it wouldbe 68,831, accordingto Projection "A". The populationof towns and villages was projectedusing the same method.However theirpopulations were treated as proportionsof censusdivisions and the forecasted proportions were appliedto the appropriatecensus division population projection. Rural figures represent theresidual difference between census division populations and the populationof towns with over 1,000 people. 21 7 ATTACHMENT D.III.7B. POPULATION PROJECTION A (HIGH), MANITOBA, 1975,1985 and 2000 19 75 1985 2000 1975 1985 2000 1985 1975 2000 1985 1975 CensusDivision 1 30,256 31,788 32,854 CensusDivision 4 11,839 11,081 9,744 Steinba ch 6,305 Steinbach 9,463 16,992 Melita 1,248 1,544 2,082 Ste. Anne 1,141 1,389 1,797 Boissevain" 1,658 2,047 2,754 (R ural) 22,810 (Rural) 20,936 12,761 (Rural) 8,933 6,434 3,758 Ste. Agathe Ste. 260 277 289 Deloraine 980 1,056 1,150 A dolphe 545St. Adolphe 782 1,304 Har tney 587 624 6 68 Washada 221 184 135 CensusDivision 2 31,774 30,781 28,107 Napinka 120 98 71 A1tona 2,300 2,804 3,643 Morris 1,423 1,551 1,689 CensusDivision 5 32,786 34,633 35,602 Morden 3,708 4,903 7,237 Selkirk 10,009 12,010 15,270 Carman 2,030 2,130 2,198 Beausejour" 2,462 3,096 4,240 Winkler 3,625 5,365 9,481 Rural 20,315 18,317 13,991 (Rural) 18,688 14,028826 Beach Winnipeg 24,284 1,210 2,101 St. JeanBaptiste 547 597 658 Emerson 804 788 734 * Not in SourisGarrisonor Study Areas CONTINUED ATTACHMENT D.III.7B CONTINUED: POPULATION PROJECTION A (HIGH), MANITOBA, 1975,1985 and 2000 1975 1985 2000 1985 1975 CensusDivision 6 30 ,357 32,124 33 ,604 CensusDivision 20 578,200 697,324886,807 Portage la Prairie13,934 16 ,21,668875 (Refers to Winnipeg c.M.A.+> R ural 16,423 Rural 10,76015,249 Rural(2% of C.M.C. 11,56413,947 17,736 St. Claude 7 34 900 1,population 176 above) CensusDivision 7 CensusDivision 8 17,101 16,566 15,115 N 54 ,035 60,554 68 ,831 P \o Brandon 33,356 40,426 51,720 Souris 1,674 1,748 1,953 (Rural) 6,41120 214,115 , 679 3,183 Virden"17,111 ,128 Wawanesa 4884 70 484 Rivers" 1,1511,106 1,153 Ru ral 11,094Rural 5,6459 , 550 CensusDivision 9 11 ,738 11,97711,867 Stonewall1,718 2,6742 , 080 Rural10,0209,897 9 ,193 * NotGarrisonSouris or inStudy Areas ManitobaPopulation: 1975 = 1,011,900;1985 = 1,119,300; 2000 = 1,249,200. + Central Metropolitan Area ATTACHMENT D.III.7C. POPULATIONPROJECTION B (MEDIUM), MANITOBA, 1975, 1985 and 2000 1975 1985 2000 1975 1985 2000 1985 1975 2000 1985 1975 CensusDivision 1 29 ,879 29 ,672 28,044 CensusDivision 4 11,692 10,344 8 ,317 Steinbach 6,227 8,833 14,504 Melita 1,232 1,441 1,777 Ste. Anne 1 ,126 1,297 1,534 Boissevaink 1,637 1,910 2,350 (Rural) 22 ,526 19,542 10,850 (Rural) 8,823 6,993 4,190 Ste. Agathe 257 258 24 7 Deloraine 968 986 981 St . Adolphe 538 730 1,113 Hartney 580 583 571 Washada 172 219 116 N DivisionCensus 2 23,99128,73231,378 Nap inka 118 91 61 N 0 A1tona 2,6182,272 3,109 Morris 1,4481,406 1,442 CensusDivision 5 32,37732 ,075 30 ,390 Morden 3 ,662 4,577 6,178 Selkirk13,034 11,210 9,885 Carman 2,005 I, 988 1,876 Beausejour"3,619 2,890 2,432 Winkler 3,580 5 ,151 8,092 (Rural) 20,00016,846 11 ,944 (Rural) 18,813 12 ,950 3,294 BeachWinnipeg 1,7931,129 816 Emerson 7367 94 626 St. JeanBaptiste 557 540 561 * Not inSouris orGarrison Study Areas CONTINUED CensusDivision 6 29,97929,986 28,683 CensusDivision 20 571,000650,910 756,966 Portage la Prairie 13,76015,752 19,334 (Refersto Winnipeg c .M.A.+) (Rural) 1614,234 ,219 8,301 (Rural) 11 ,420 13,018 15,139 St. Claude 84 726 0 1,050 (2% of C.M.C. populationabove) CensusDivision 7 53,363 56 ,524 58,753 CensusDivision 8 16,888 15,463 12,902 Brandon 32,941 37 ,735 44 ,147 Souris 1,653 1,631 1,521 (Rural) 20,422 18,789 14 ,606 Virden 3,142 3 ,841 4 ,993 Wawanesa 464 452 41 7 Rivers 1,041 898 944 (Rural) 11,052 9,991 6, 388 CensusDivision 9 11,592 11,179 10,130 Stonewall 1,697 2,014 2,612 (Rural) 9,895 9,165 7,518 * Not inSouris orGarrison Study Areas ManitobaPopulation: 1975 = 999,300; 1985= 1,044,800; 2000 = 1,066,300. + Central Metropolitan Area 0 0 In 0 N 0 0 In rl hl In N In a3 W W m In rl rl nnnnn OONWrl mrl rl In 03 co I- I- 4 cn m N rl 0 (d .# a, k a M h (d 'r) h a, a a, rl a $ (d VI (d u 5 L4 k % (d (d aj a, 2 X rn a W Ul 0 In N 0 rl 0 rl m rl I- 0 0 W I- m N n n n r-i m rl In m a3 In a3 m 0 0 r-i 0 m I- u- m I- 4 n e * rl In W a3 I- rl I- m u- m m m m W m I- rl n n m rl caJ a 4 0 G a G 0 4 8 (d ffl a E k k L4 aJ u (d E rn V w ATTACHMENT D.III.7D CONTINUED: POPULATIONPROJECTION C (LOW), MANITOBA, 1975, 1985 and 2000 1975 1985 2000 1985 1975 CensusDivision 6 29,86228,875 26,146 CensusDivision 20568,772 626,800 690,023 Portage la Prairie 13,70715,168 18,619 (Refersto Winnipeg C.M.A.) (Rural) 16 ,155 13 ,707 6 ,519 (Rural - 2% of 11,37512,536 13,801 St. Claude 809 723 1 ,011 C.M.A. population above) CensusDivision 7 53,154 54,430 53 ,557 CensusDivision 8 16,82214,890 11 ,761 h, 10 w Brandon 32 ,812 36 ,338 40,243 Souris1,387 1,571 1,647 (Rural) 20,342 18 ,092 13 ,314 Virden*4,552 3,699 3,130 Wawanesa435 462 380 Rivers* 1 ,132 1 ,861036 (Rural) 9,781 8 ,584 5 ,822 CensusDivision 9 11,547 10,765 9 ,234 Stonewall 1 ,690 1,870 2,080 (Rural) 9,857 8,895 7 ,154 * Not in Souris or Garrison Study Areas ManitobaPopulation: 1975 = 995,400; 1985 = 1,006,100; 2000 = 972,000. ATTACHMENT D.III.8. FORECAST OF MUNICIPAL WATER USE FOR MANITOBA, 1975, 1985and 2000 1975 1985 1975 2000 ServedPopulation ThousandImperialGallonsPer Day (Estimated) 1. Domestic Emerson --- 63.6 64.1 1975 81% 60 57.6 54.7 85 % 1985 "_ 55.4 49.7 2000 95% St. JeanBaptiste "- 23.0 29.9 1975 53% 20.5 21.5 25.3 1985 55% "- 20.9 23.3 65% 2000 10 Morris "- 119.3 130.0 1975 93% c10 113.2 111.0 111.0 1985 95% L "_ 107.3 101.1 95% 2000 Selkirk H "_ 1671.3 2125 .O M 1386.8 1560.0 1813.8 98% All Years L "- 1502.2 1653.3 Portage la Prairie H "- 2160.0 2773.5 M 1666.0 2016.3 2474.8 100% All Years L "_ 1941.5 2382.2 Souris H "_ 152.8 169.9 1975 59% M 138.1 142.5 132.9 1985 95% "_ 137.3 120.7 2000 95% H = High Forecast (A); M = Medium Forecast (B); L = Low Forecast (C). ATTACHMENT D.IV.l. INDUSTRIAL WATER USEIN MANITOBA In this Attachment, the method for deriving the projections of self-supplied industrial water use will be outlined. The section begins with an outline of the method used for the thermal power plants which now exist in the basin and the nuclear plant projected2000. for The second section outlines the methods used for the manufacturing plants. 1. Power Generation Plants The Manitoba Hydro plantat Selkirk withdrew52.05 mgd from the Red River in1972 (93). The plant load factor, or the percentage of the year in which the plant was in operation,7.7 was percent (93). On the basis of consultation with Environment Canada officials, it was assumed that the utilization factor could rise as high30% byas 2000. This figure was taken as the high forecast. The medium and low utilization rate forecasts were assumedto be 20% and 15% respectively, the latter figure being the lowest rate throught possible2000. by Water use in thermal power plants is a direct linear function of the utilization rate. Thus, forecasts of the utilization rate permit forecasts of future water use (TableD. 1). Intermediate values for the utilization rate1975 in and 1985 were obtained by linear interpolation between 1972 the value and the low, medium, and high forecasts for2000. Thus, three sets of forecasted utilization rates were calculated, as shown in Table D.l. Water use in thermal power plants is a direct linear function of the utilization rate. There are other variables, such as the cost of recirculation, the type of cooling system in use, etc.; however, these have a relatively minor effect i.n the plants under consideration. Thus water use forecasts were computed as straight-line functions of the utilization rates shown. The same methodology was used for the Winnipeg Hydro plant 1).(Table Consultation with officials of both the Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management and Environment Canada suggested that at least one and possibly two nuclear power stations would be located in the Lake Winnipeg sub-basin 2000.by This projection is based upon power demand projections and technological developments which suggest the future proliferation of nuclear power generation in Canada. The medium water use forecast for2000 assumes, therefore, that one nuclear power plant will be operating. The high forecast projects the presence of two nuclear plants. The capacities+of these plants is taken to be 2,000 megawatts, the average size of current units. Based upon the characteristics of plants operating in Ontario, the water use is projected at4.63 mgd per plant. 225 TABLE D.1. UTILIZATION RATE AND WATER USE FORECASTS FOR THERMAL POWER PLANTS Plant and Type of Forecast Utilization Rate (X) Water Use (mgd) 1972 1975 1985 1975 1972 2 000 1985 1975 1972 2000 Manitoba Hydro 1. Low 7.7 52.0511.2 15.0 101.40 75.36 9.0 13.0 20.0 52.05 60.84 87.88 135.20 87.88 2. Medium 60.84 52.05 20.0 7.7 13.0 9.0 3. High3. 7.7 18.0 202.7530.0 121.68 52.05 N h, rn 3.3 4.3 5.5 1.37 1.80 2.28 1.80 1.37 5.5 1. Low4.3 3.3 3.3 5.0 6.5 10.8 1.37 2.08 2.70 4.48 2.70 2.08 1.37 10.8 2. 6.5Medium 5.0 3.3 3. High 3.3 9.0 15.0 1.37 3.74 6.23 3.74 1.37 15.0 9.0 3.3 High 3. 2.Manufacturing (a) Existing Plants: Only one manufacturing plant, Manitoba Sugar, currently withdraws water directly from the Red River(94). This plant withdrew some3.1 mgd of water in 1972. To determine the future growth rate expected at this plant, statistics on the value of shipments for the industry for the last 20 years were used. Since the Manitoba Sugar plant is the oniy one of its kind in the province, the value of shipments for this plant is confidential. Thus it was necessary to use the value of shipment for the 3-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) group* which included the sugar refining industry. These statistics show that the average annual rate of growth since 1951 has 4%.been This growth rate was used in the water use forecasting model to be described in a later section of this Attachment. (b) New Plants: Forecasted agricultural activity in the Portage la Prairie area indicates that irrigated acreage will increase substantially. It is the consensus of persons knowledgeable with this area that part of this increase will be accounted for by vegetable and potato production.It is thought that to process this vegetable production, at least one vegetable cannery will be required by 1985, and that two such plants can be reasonably anticipated by 2000. Thus, both the medium and high forecasts for 1985 include provision for a vegetable processing plant. By 2000, the vegetable canning industry can be expected to expand to two plants, and it is virtually certain that at least one plant will be located in the Assiniboine sub-basin. Therefore, the low forecast for2000 includes the presence of one vegetable processor, and the medium and high forecasts each include provision for two such plants. As noted above, potato production can also be expected to expand in the Portage la Prairie area. Already one potato processing plant has located in the area. Another such plant is projected here in 2000, and provision for it has been built into the medium and high water use forecasts2000. for * The SIC system is used by Statistics Canada to categorize industrial plants in Canada. The system consists of a hierarchy of industrial groups denoted by a 1-, 2-,3-, or 4-digit number. The classification system become progressively finer as one increases the number of digits in the code denoting the group. Thus, in the case of sugar refineries, the SIC hierarchy is as follows: SIC10 is the food and beverage industry; SIC 108 is the industry; and SIC 1082 is the sugar refining industry. Thus SIC 108 was used to compute the growth rate for Manitoba Sugar. 227 Thelow water useforecasts for 1985 have been done without thevegetable plant or the potato processor to show the effect on water useshould plants of both types fail to materialize. Thelow forecast for 2000 includesonly one vegetable processor, which is thoughtcertain to locate in the area. Expandingproduction of sugar beets is thought to be a reasonable assumptionfor the Canadian portion of the study area, The esisting sugar refinery will probablyhandle the increased demand for beet processingpast 1985, but it is thoughtthat by 2000, onemore refinery is a reasonableexpectation. Provision for the water use by this expected new plant is made in the medium andhigh forecasts for 2000. Thelow forecastdoes not include the projected new sugarbeet plant to show the effect on water useshould it not be built. Basedupon general population trends and the demands inherent insuch growth, a wineryand a distillery have been projected to locate in the Manitobapart of the Red River sub-basin. The winery will probably beconstructed f'irst, andhas been included in the high water useforecast for 1985.The distillery is thoughtto be a reasonablepossibility by 2000, andboth it andthe winery have been included in the medium and highforecasts for that year. Again neither type of plant has been includedin the low forecast for 1985 and 2000, to show theeffect on water useshould they fail to materialize. It is thoughtthat a glass plant was also a reasonablepossibility overthe time horizonsbeing considered. The plantwould be located in theWinnipeg area. Its water requirementshave been included in the highforecast for 1985 and the medium andhigh forecast for 2000. As in the case ofother new industries,the glass plant has been omitted from boththe 1985 and 2000 water useforecasts. Agriculturalproduction in the Canadian portion of the study area will probablygenerate enough demand to justify construction of a fertilizerplant. The locationof such a plant is uncertain,but has beenplaced hypothetically in the Souris sub-basin. Its water requirements are includedin the high forecast for 1985 and the medium andhigh forecastsfor 2000. The industrialscenarios outlined above are tentative. The consultativeapproach was adoptedin the face of a completeabsence of industrialforecasting in southern andsouthwestern Manitoba, and the lackof a stati-stical basisfor a solidmethodological forecast. Three differentscenarios have been constructed, the low scenario being little different fromthe industrial base (self-supplied water only)which now exists. Theseforecasts include only industries which have a reasonable chanceof acquiring their own water supplies. 2 28 (c) Water Use Forecasts: Water usedata for the Manitoba Sugar Refinery were takenfrom the 1972Survey of Industrial Water Use byEnvironment Canada. These dataconsist of water intake, water recirculatedand gross water use, the sum ofthe first two figures. Employment figures were derivedfrom Scott'sIndustrial Directory (95). Thegrowth rate forthis establishment, 4%, was calculated as outlinedin sub-section (a) of this Attachment. Forthe plants yet to be established in the study area, water intake, recirculation, gross water useand employment estimates were basedupon averages computed from a sampleof similar plants in other areas ofthe country. The water usedata were derivedfrom the Survey ofIndustrial Water Use, whileemployment figures came fromScott's IndustrialDirectory. For example, in the case ofthe distillery forecastedfor the Red Riversub-basin, a sampleof 11 distilleries was drawnfrom the industrial water usesurvey returns; the sample consisted ofthree plants from Quebec, five from Ontario, one from British Columbia andtwo from Manitoba. The data were averaged,and the results used to represent a typical distillery with regard to water use andemployment. Growth rates for the new plants were basedupon a 20-year time trend(1952-72) of the "value of shipments of goods of own manufacture", (a statistical series given by Statistics Canada for all industries)for the SIC groupin which the new plant is classified*. As the Manitoba industrialbase is so small, many ofthe statistics for 3- or4-digit SIC groups are confidential,even provincially. Thus, an attempt was made initially to use statistics forthe appropriate 4-digit SIC groupnationally. With theexceptions of the glass products industry and the fertilizer industry,the growth rates derived in this mannerappeared too high for usein Manitoba. Thus for the food and beverage related plants, the Manitobagrowth rate forthe food and beverage industry, the broad 2-digit SIC groupto which most of the new plants are classified, was used in the water useforecasting model. Table D.2 summarizesthe data used in the model. The water useforecasting model is a simplesimulation model in which the variables of industry water use are placed into their properrelationships (Figure D.l) (89). Themain determinants of water intake in a plant are gross water use, the total amountof water usedin producingthe product, and recirculation, the total amountof water used more thanonce during production. Total water intakeequals gross use minusrecirculation. * Employment figures were notused to compute growth rates as theytend togive biased estimates of growth,particularly in capital intensive industries. Employmenthad tobe used in the water useforecasting model, as it is the only statistic availableon an individual plant basis. 229 Gross Use (GU) may be represented as follows: a EA GU= 1 t where a = gross water use per day per unitof economic activity. 1 EA = economic activity in time t, as represented here by total t employment at the plant. Ttl = a variable representing forces tending to alter gross use (e.g., process change, increased cooling requirements). Economic activity in periodt is a functionof economic activityin the previous period, t-1, as follows: EA, = + kl) where kl= average annual growth rate, expressed in termsof decimals. The variable T is the most tentative partof the water use model. It t is included to take account of the possible effects of tendencies toward increasing or decreasing gross water use. The value of the variableis quite arbitrary in the present context. The medium forecast hypothesizes moderate tendencies toward decreasing gross use, while the high forecast hypothesizes moderate tendencies toward increasing gross use. The value of T is calculated as follows: t ’ kt Tt’ = 1 2 x + ” 100 where k2 = +1 for medium forecasts -1 for high forecasts Recirculation is taken as a constant percentage of gross use. For Manitoba Sugar, the forecasting period is 28 years (i.e., 1972 - 2000). For the plants to come on line in 1985, the dataof Table D.2 are assumed to applyin 1985, and,of course, the same water use figures will apply to both the medium and high forecasts. For the plant starting only in2000, there is no forecastingof water use necessary, and the data of TableD.2 apply. Table D.3 tabulates the resultsof the water use forecasting exercise. 230 FIGURE D.l. FLOW DIAGRAM WATER DEMAND FORECA.STS Rate of Growth Economic Economic Gross Water Use (+) Technological \’ Effects Total rl Water Intake * Recirculation - Recirculation (-) - % of Gross Use L \I Not Modelledin] Theseforecasts 231 1 TABLE D.2. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATEDPLANT WATER USES, EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH RATES Growsh To tal Water Recirculation Gross Rate Plant Employment Intake Water Use (X of G.W.U.) (re annum) (MGD) V egetable Processor 190 .272 .282 .272 190 Processor Vegetable 3.5 4% D istillery 243 1.523 2.610 42.0 2.610 1.523 243 Distillery 4% W inery 62 Winery 5.2 .128 .135 4% Processor 239 2.774 5.736 52.0 5.736 2.774 Sugar239 Beet Processor 4% N w Glass ,222 631 1.472 84.0 5.5% N Fertilizer .012 29 ,012 - 2% (PotatoProcessor - same as vegetableprocessing plant). All figuresexcept growth rates 1972 2 Basedon 1952-1972 trendsin value of shipments of goods of own manufacture. TABLE D.3. FORECASTED WATER USES BY INDUSTRY IN MANITOBA PORTZONTHE OF G.D.U. STUDY AREA (Gallors Per Day) 1975 1985 2000 Bas in Bas L M M H L H Red 2,08O,OOO(WH) -Red 1,800,000 2,700,000 3,740,000 2 ,280; 000 4,500,000 6,230,000 60,84Oy0O0(MJ3) 75,360,000 87,880,000 121,680,000 101,400,000 135,200,000 202,750,000 3,519,200(MS) 4,726,500 4,762,500 5,776,800 7,497,700 7,497 ,700 12,496,100 222,000 (G) - 457,900 619,400 128 ,000 (W) - 205,300 277,800 2,774,000(B) 2,774,000 1,523,000(D) 1,523,000 TOTAL66,439,200 81,886,500 95,342,500 131,546,800 111,177,700 152,157,900 226,670,300 ~~~ Assiniboine - 272,000 (V) 272 ,000 427,400854,800(2V) 1,156,400(2V) 272,000272 ,000 h) w w TOTAL - 272 ,000 272,000427,4001,126,800 1,428,400 Souris - - 12,000 (F) - 21,40015,800 TOTAL - - 12 ,000 - 15,800 21,400 Lake Winnipeg - - - - - 4,630,000(N)9,260,000(2N) TOTAL 66,439,200 81,886,50095,614,500 131,480,800 111,605,100 158,085,900237,380,100 ATTACHMENT D.V.l. PROJECTED IRRIGATION WATER USE IN THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA Agriculture is thedominant economic activity in almost all partsof the study area in Canada. It follows,therefore, that the majorland use of the Souris, Assiniboine and Red River basins is agricultural. Agricultural activity in the study area currentlyconsists of extensive drylandgrain farming combined withlivestock production. Although only about 2,000 acres are currentlybeing irrigated from surface and groundwater sources,about 1.7 million acres are potentiallyirrigable (Class I and Class I1 lands).These areas are shown onFigure 1. Withinthe time horizonsconsidered in this study, it is likely that the most significant increase in water usewithin the study area will beto satisfy potential irrigation demands. As mentioned previously,substantial acreages of irrigable soils exist within the study area. Irrigationof these soils wouldtend to stabilize farm productionand increase farm production since the risk and uncertainty I infarming operations would bereduced through irrigation. It is recognized, however, that anydevelopment of the area's water resourceswould have to be economically justifiable. Basedon a reasonablerange of possibilities for irrigation development inthe Souris, Red andAssiniboine River basins,neither the availability of suitable water supplies nor the availability of potentially irrigable soils can,in themselves, be considered to be limiting factors tothe potential development of irrigation. Although neither the Souris River Basinnor major areas within the Red River Basin contain sufficient quantitiesof surface or groundwater to irrigate large acreages of potentiallyirrigable land, should economic conditions warrant, the diversionof water for irrigation within these areas is feasible (61). The rate at whichsuch development would occur is dependentupon the economicbenefits of irrigation agriculture as opposed to the capital andoperating costs of implementing private and public irrigation. Development in all basins will undoubtedlyrespond to significant changes in future commodity pricessuch as thoseexperienced in the last two or threeyears. In addition, pressure from competing uses of lands in these areas will likely drive up the cost of landand impose an additional incentiveupon the farmer to increase his efficiency of operation. Time constraintsdid not permit a detailedanalysis with respec.tto the economics of supplying water to potentially irrigable lands.Therefore, the low, medium andhigh projections of irrigation water use to 1985 and 2000 which are containedin the following sections are basedon discussions with various provincial and federal government officials. Water requirements were determinedon the basis of one acre- foot of water per acre ofirrigated land. 234 1. Red River Basin Approximately865,300 acres of land in the Red RiverBasin in Manitoba are classified as potentiallyirrigable. However, only about800 acres are currentlybeing irrigated. Aboutone-half of this is confinedto a narrowbelt of alluvial soils along the main stem of the Red River betweenSt. Agathe and Selkirk, the remainder to some private irrigationdevelopment in the Winkler area. Any significant developmentof irrigation in this latter area will probablytake the formof public development of surface water supplies;the probable source of irrigation water is diversionof water fromeither the Assiniboine or Pembina rivers. Large dams onthe Pembina River havebeen investigated previously(57) as has a diversioncanal from the Assiniboine River and a diversioncanal from Lakeof the Woods (61). The developmentof private irrigationusing groundwater supplies will not likely be significant since waterfrom this source is verylimited. In the Western Drift Prairie Uplands a limited potential for private irrigationdevelopment exists on the better alluvial soils foundalong the present flood plain of the PembinaRiver Valley. Threelevels of projected water useto 1985 were made as shown inTable 1. Low and medium projections are onlyslightly higher than currentuse amounting to 400 and500 acre-feet annually. The high estimate of7.500 acre-feet annually was basedon the smallest scheme identifiedin investigations carried with respect to development of the Pembilier Dam onthe Pembina River (57). Projections of use to 2000 are considerablyhigher than those for1985 (Table 1). Thelow estimate of7,500 acre-feet was made on the same basis as thehigh 1985 projection. Themedium andhigh projections, 25,000and 50,000 acre-feet respectively, were basedon consultations with provincial and federal officials. 2. Sour is River Basin The SourisRiver Basin, like the Red RiverBasin, is esseAtially a drylandfarming area at thepresent time. Of 517,760acres of potentially irrigableland, less than 100 acres are currentlyunder irrigation. Approximately 500 acres of landcould be irrigated from currently available surface water supplies (61). However, previouslystudied storage projects on theAntler River and onGainsborough Creek (8) could provide enough water to irrigate an additional 6,000 acres. Similar to theprocedure used for the Red River Basin,three levelsof forecasts of futureirrigation development for the Souris Basin were preparedfor each of the target years, 1985 and 2000 (Table 1). Low and medium projecteduses are only slightly higher than current levels of use. The highprojection of 2,000 acre-feetannually is basedon the amountof water that wouldbe made availablefor irrigation if the proposed Patterson Dam onGainsborough Creek (8) was constructed. 235 TABLE I: PROJECTEDIRRIGATION WATER USE IN THECANADIAN PORTIONOF THE STUDY AREA(ACRE-FEET) PROJECTEDUSE: 1985 PROJECTED USE: 2000 RIVE R BASINRIVER LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM HIGH Red 400 500 7,500 7,500 25,000 50,000 Souris 150 200 2,000 2,000 6,000 60,000 Assiniboine 2,500 6,200 15,000 15,000 30,000 53 ,000 236 The lowprojection of use by 2000 is againbased on water that wouldbe avilable through construction of the Patterson Dam. The medium projectionof 6,000 acre-feet is basedon the premise that both Patterson Dam andthe proposed Coulter Dam onthe Antler River (8) would be constructed. The high estimate of 60,000 acre-feet 3. AssiniboineRiver Basin TheAssiniboine River sub-basincontains almost 300,000 acres ofland suitable for crop production under irrigation. Only about 1,000 acresare currentlyunder irrigation. A specificstudy of the area within a 15 to 20 mile radius of Portage la Prairie indicatesthat 92,400 acres of landwithin this area are potentiallyirrigable (55). At the present time there is sufficient water availablein the Assiniboine River, ifsupplemented by releases fromthe upstream Shellmouth Reservoir, to irrigate60,000 acres. Many thousandadditional acres couldbe irrigated byaugmenting existing Assiniboine River flows through diversion of waterfrom other basins. A number ofsuch schemes, including the Lake Winnipegosisto Upper AssiniboineRiver diversion and a diversioncanal tothe Assiniboine River fromLake Manitoba (61) have already been investigated. As forthe Red andSouris River basins,three forecasts of irrigation water usefor both 1985 and 2000 were made (Table 1)'. As this area hasthe best potential for irrigation development because of theproximity ofprime irrigable land to available water supplies, projecteduses in the Assiniboine River Basin are generallyhigher than inother basins. By 1985 it is expectedthat use will increase by a minimum of 250 percentover current levels. The medium projectionof about6,200 acre-feet per year is basedon information contained in the previouslymentioned study of irrigation in thePortage la Prairie area (55). The highprojection of 15,000acre-feet annually is basedon consultations with provincial and federal officials. By 2000, it is expectedthat a minimum of15,000 acre-feet will berequired for irrigation purposes and that a more likelyrequirement wouldbe 30,000 acre-feet per year.These projections were based on consultations with knowledgeable officials of theManitoba and Canadian governments. The high estimate, 53,000acre-feet per year, would see the irrigation of all Class I acreagein the Assiniboine River Basin. 23 7 ATI.K.H.X!3 D.V. 2 UVC CLASSiFICATION STASDARDS FOR SPRINKLER IRRIGATIOK SCITABILITY - CANADA S.ymbols Land CharacteristicsClassSubclass L-Very bod Class 2-Good4-Unsuitable Class 3-Fair Class Def ic. SOILS S Texture verycourse textured v Finesandy loams to Loamy finesand to Sand permeableto Gravel clayto veryfine textured h clay loams lightclay clay Water holdingcapacity low available moisture capacity q 40 to 60 satuarion % 35 to 65 sat. 7; 25 to 75 sat. % 25 of 75 sat. "/ 6" storagein 4 feet 5" storagein 4 Eeet 3"storage in 4 feet 3" storagein 4 feet 4"/hr.hydraulic 5"/hrhydraulic 7"Ihr.haudraulic 7"Ihr.hydraulic cond. cond. cond. cond. GeologicalDeposit shallowdeposit over sand or 36" or more of fine 24" or moreof fine 18" or moreof sandy 18" orsandy loam gravel k sandyloam or heavier sandyloam or heavier loam orheavier, or orheavier, or 24" or 30" plus of loamy 24" plus ofloamy or loamysand or finesand or sandy sand sand loam shallowdeposit over impervious 10' ofpermeable 6' of permeable permeable3'permeable of of 3' substrata b material materialmaterial material Salinity and Alkalinity a 4mmhos in 0-2' 4' mmhos in 0-2' 8mhosin 0-2' 8mmhos in 0-2' 8mmhos below 2' 12' mhosbelow 2' 15mmhos below 2' 15mmhos below 2' 6 S.A.R. 8 S.A.R. 12 S.A.R. 12 S.A.R. EXTERNAL FEATURES T Topography* Slope excessgradient g 1%and 0.1% in 3% ingeneral 52 ingeneral 5% ingeneral generalgradient gradient gradient gradient Irrigation pattern deficientfield size orshape 400' minimum run 300' minimum run 150' minimum run 150'run j 10 acres minimum 5 acres minimum 5 acres minimum 5 acressize sizeif regular size if regular size 20 acres minimum 8 acres minimum sizeif irregular sizeif irregular Surface (levelling requirement) u Light-0 to 200 cubic Medium-200 to 350 Heavy-350 to 500 Excessive-more yards excavation per cubic yards cubic yards than 500 cubic yards acre excabation per acre excavation per acre excavation per acre Cover (vegetation) tree and brush clearing c None to light None to medium None to heavy Heavy brush clearing clearing clearing Stones-rock clearing r None to light None to medium None to heavy Excessively stoney clearing clearing clearing DRAINAGE D High water table no problem moderate drainage moderate to severe Drainage improvement anticipated problem anticipated drainageproblem considerednot but may be improved anticipatedbut may feasible at relatively low be improved by cost expensive but feasibie measures * Several slope gradient standards have been adjustedto more adiquantly accomodate sprinkler irrigation systems. Class1 = 3%, *t~ Class 2 = 5%, Class 3 = lo%, Class 4 = 10%. 0 ATTACHMENT D.V.3A. ESTIMATED SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER BY VARIOUS CROPS Consumptive Use Crop (inches)Average GrowingSeason 1 Alfalfa 30.0 May 1 toOctober 8 1 Corn 24.5 May 18 to September16 1 Sugar Beets 25.6 May 20 toOctober 1 1 Small Grains 19.4 May 1 to August 8 1 Potatoes 22.1 June 1 to September15 1 FieldBeans 18.1 June 1 to September 15 1 Grass 27.2 MayOctober 1 to 8 VegetableCrops 293 12-20 May 25 to September15 1 PersonalCommunication - P.Balkin, U.S.D.A. - SCS OEfice,Bismark, N.D. Thisdata applies to the Souris Loop Area inNorth Dakota. Data for the Red River Valley are somewhat lowerthan for the Souris River Basin. 2 Estimate basedon data derived from Plant Research Institute, Research Branch,Canada Department of AgricultureTechnical Bulletin 35. Risk Analysis of Weekly Climatic Data forAgriculture and Irrigation Planning. Preparedby M. Coligado,July, 1968. 3 Sonmor, L.G. "SeasonalConsumptive Use of water bycrops in southern Albertaand its relationshipto evaporation", Canadian Journal of SocialScience, Vol. 43,1963, pp. 287-297. 241 ATTACHMENT D.V.3B. MEASURED CONSUMPTIVEUSE AT MAXIMUM YIELD FOR PRINCIPALFIELD CROPS IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA (TABER AND VAUXHALL, ALBERTA, 1950-1961) Mean ConsumptiveAverage Length Growing Season Crop Use (Days) Alfalfa 26 fi 6 155 Grass, Pasture 24 t 5 152 Sugar Beets 22 t 3 156 Potatoes 20 fi 4 137 Soft Wheat 19 t 4 104 HardWheat 18 ? 2 102 Oats 16 fi 2 96 Barley 16 ? 3 90 Flax 15 fi 3 98 CanningCorn 15 t 2 107 FieldCorn 15 t 2 120 Tomatoes 14 t 2 103 CanningPeas 13 fi 2 78 Source : (90) 24 2 ATTACHMENT D.V.4. IRRIGATION WATER ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONOF CROP EFFECTS,POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS Souris River near Westhope,UNITS:nearSourisRiver N.D. mg/l (May-Sept. Conditions - Irrigation Season) Pre-Pro ject Post-Equil.Post-Peak Leach. TDS 429 605 624 605 429 1. TDS 563 838 563 888 546 513(AVG)546 905 885(AVG) 979 960(AVG) 495 1,033 1,151 1,033 495 531 1,044 1236(MAX) 1,160 1442(MAX)1236(MAX)1,1601,044 531 2. so4 14 1 266 245 169 35 6 405 154 154 (AVG) 400 397(AVG) 468 467 (AVG) 158 493 597 14 8 492 601(MAX) 597 763(MAX) HC03 281 305 315 305 281 3. HC03 334 355 377 355 334 334315(AVG) 363354 (AVG) 392383(AVG) 280 7 36 410 34 7 378 7 34 441 (MAX) 422 508(MAX) 4. Ca 42 61 64 52 84 92 42 43(AVG) 42 89 89 (AVG) 100 101(AVG) 39 106 123 38 106 130(MAX) 124 157(MAX) 5.102 Na 83 93 97 127 97 11 0 102 103 (AVG) 137134(AVG) 116 114(AVG) 117 152 125 152 117 11 6 177(MAX) 152 125 145(MAX) 6. Mg6. 28 36 38 37 49 54 3634 (AVG) 53 51(AVG) 59 58(AVG) 33 58 69 36 72(MAX) 59 70 87(MAX) 243 7. c1 19 22 21 19 24 24 23 21(AVG) 27 26 (AVG) 27 26 (AVG) 20 28 28 24 29 33(MAX) 29 34(MAX) 8. NO3 0.15 0.66 0.61 0.38 0.69 0.66 0.11 0.26 (AVG) 0.70 0.77(AVG) 0.67 0.74(AVG) 0.27 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.27 0.41 0.79 5.47(MAX) 0.78 5.44(MAX)5.47(MAX) 0.78 0.79 0.41 244 ATTACHMENT D.V.4. (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF IRRIGATION WATER ANALYSIS SOURIS RIVER Souris River nearWesthope, N.D. UNITS = mmho/cm (May-Sept. Conditions - IrrigationSeason) Po s t-Pro j ec t Post-Project Pre-Project Peak Leaching Equilibrium 1. T.D.S. Ec 0.81 1.50mmhos (AVG) 1.38 (AVG) 2.26mmhos(MAX) 1.93(MAX) 2. Ca *-mmho/l 2.14 5.09 (AVG) 4.44 (AVG) 7.85 (MAX) 6.50(MAX) 3. Mg *-mmhO/l 2.84 4.77 (AVG) 4.21 (AVG) 7.16 (MAX) 5.92 (MAX) 4. Na +-mmho/l 4.61 4.95 (AVG) 5.82 (AVG) 6.31(MAX) 7. MA MAX) 5. SO=-mho / 1 3.21 9.72 (AVG) 8.27 (AVG) 4 15.97 (MAX) 12.54 (MAX) 6. HC03-mmho /1 5.16 6.28 (AVG) 5.80 (AVG) 8.29(MAX) 7.25 (MAX) 7. Cl--mmho / 1 0.59 0.73(AVG) 0.73 (AVG) 0.96 (MAX) 0.94 (MAX) 8. N03-mmho/l 0.0004 0.012 (AVG) 0.012(AVG) 0.088 (MAX) 0.088 (MAX) 24 5 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED)SOURIS RIVER NEAR WESTHOPE, NORTH DAKOTA (MAY-SEPT.CONDITIONS - IRRIGATIONSEASON) TDSPOST-PROJECT POST-PROJECT PRE-PROJECT EQU ILIBRIUM PEAK LEACHINGEQUILIBRIUMPEAK 429 605 624 605 429 563 838 888 838 563 546 531(AVG) 885905 (AVG) 960979 (AVG) 495 1,033 1 ,I51 531 1442(MAX) 1,1601236(MAX) 1,044 ConditionMaximum Average Pre-Pro j ect 0.81 N/A Equilibrium 1.38 1.93 Peak Leaching 1.50 2.26 24 6 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) LEACHING FRACTION DETERMINATIONS SOURIS RIVER NEAR WESTHOPE, NORTH DAKOTA Minimum Leaching Fraction Associated with Maintenance of Specified Salinity Levels in the Active Root Zone using the Maximum Anticipated Salinity Concentration to Occur Under Post-Project Equilibrium Conditions Present Irrigated ECe (mmhos/cm) -Salinity Leaching ** Crops - at Yield Decline Threshold Fraction(%) Carrots 1.0 0.25 Onion 1.2 0.20 Cole 1.8 0.12 Celery No data - Parsnip No data Turnip No data - Potato 1.7 0.13 Small Fruit 1.5 0.15 Nursery No data Other Crops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.25 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.25 Clover 0.15 1.5 Pepper 0.15 1.5 Lettuce 1.3 0.18 Sweet 0.15Potato 1.5 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.13 Orchard0.15 Grass 1.5 Tomato 2.5 0.09 Broccoli 2.8 0.07 Flax 1.7 0.13 Broad Bean 1.6 0.14 Alfalfa 2.0 0.14 Wild Rice 2.7 0.07 Wheat 6.0 0.03 ** The leaching fraction computations are based on rainfall during the growing season being about equal in volume to that of applied irrigation water for crops having seasonal consumptive use requirements of up to 26 inches. Using the post-project(equi1ibrium condition) irrigation water maximum salinity concentration (EC =1.93 mmho/cm), a weighted average iw iw), was computed for rainfall (EC ) and irriga- conductivity, EC (rw + rw tion water (EC.). The following relationship was used to determine the required leachlng1W fraction (LF): LF = EC(rw + iw) 5ECe-1 247 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) RED RIVER ATEMERSON, MANITOBA (MAY-SEPT. CONDITIONS - IRRIGATIONSEASON) TD S PRE-PROJECT POST-PROJECT POST-PROJECTPOST-PROJECT PRE-PROJECT TDS (mg/l) LEACHINGEQUILIBRIUM PEAK 388 390 383 388 384 392 395 371 374 (AVG) 386 393 (AVG) 392 401 (AVG) 378 412 426 352 628(MAX) 387 402 707(MAX) ELECTROCONDUCTIVITY OF IRRIGATION WATER = mmho/cm iw CONDITION AVERAGE MAXIMUM Pre-Pro j ect 0.58 N/A Equilibrium 0.61 0.98 Peak Leaching 0.63 1.11 248 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) LEACHING FRACTION DETERMINATIONS RED RIVER AT EMERSON, MANITOBA Minimum Leaching Fraction Associated with Maintenance or Specified Salinity Levels in the Active Root Zone Using the Maximum Anticipated Salinity Concentration to Occur Under Post-Project Equilibrium Conditions Presently Irrigated EC (mmho/cm)-Salinity Leaching ** Crops at Yfeld Decline Threshold Fraction (x) Carrots 1.0 0.12 Onion 1.2 0.10 Cole 1.8 0.06 Celery No data - Parsnip No data - Turnip No data - Potato 1.7 0.07 Small Fruit 1.5 0.08 Nursery No data Other Crops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.12 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.12 Clover 1.5 0.08 Pepper 1.5 0.08 Lettuce 1.3 0.09 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.08 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.07 Orchard Grass 1.5 0.08 Toma to 2.5 0.04 Broccoli 2.8 0.04 F1 ax 1.7 0.07 Broad Bean 1.6 0.07 Alfalfa 2.0 0.08 Wild Rice 2.7 0.04 Wheat 6.0 0.02 ** The computations of leaching fractions are based on rainfall during the growing season being about equal in volume to of that applied irrigation water for crops having seasonal consumptive use requirementsof up to 26 inches. Using the post-project (equilibrium condition) irrigation water maximum salinity concentration (EC = 0.98mmho/cm), a weighted average iw conductivity, EC(rw + iw), was computed for rainfall (ECw) and irrigation water (EC .w). The following relationship was used to defermine the required leaching fraction (LF): LF = EC(rw + iw) 5ECe-1 24 9 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) RED RIYER AT SELKIRK, MANITOBA (MAY-SEPT. CONDITIONS - IRRIGATION SEASON) TDS PRE-PROJECT POST-PROJECT POST-PROJECT (mg/l) LEACHINGEQUILIBRIUM PEAK 363 371 372 366 381 384 376392 (AVG) 397 422 (AVG) 401 429 (AVG) 450 495 505 403 624(MAX)467 679(MAX)581 ELECTROCONDUCTIVITY OF IRRIGATION WATER ECiw = mmho/cm CONDITION AVERAGE MAXIMUM Pre-Pro ject 0.61 N/A Equilibrium 0.66 0.98 .Peak Leaching 0.67 1.06 250 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) LEACHING FRACTION DETERMINATIONS RED RIVER ATSELKIRK, MANITOBA Minimum Leaching Fraction Associated with Maintenance of Specified Salinity Levels in the Active Root Zone Using the Maximum Anticipated Salinity Concentration to Occur Under Post-Project Equilibrium Conditions PresentlyIrrigated(mmho/cm)-Salinity EC Leaching ** Crops at YyeldDeclineCrops at Threshold Fraction (%) Carrots 1.0 0.12 Onion 1.2 0.10 Cole 1.8 0.06 Celery No data - Parsnip No data - Turnip No data - Potato 1.7 0.07 Small Fruit 1.5 0.08 Nursery No data - Other Crops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.12 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.12 Clover 1.5 0.08 Pepper 1.5 0.08 Lettuce 1.3 0.09 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.08 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.07 Orchard Grass 1.5 0.08 Tomato 2.5 0.04 Broccoli 2.8 0.04 F1ax 1.7 0.07 Broad Bean 1.6 0.07 Alfalfa 2.0 0.07 Wild Rice 2.7 0.04 Wheat 6.0 0.02 ** The leaching fraction computations are based on rainfall during the growing season being about equal in volume to that of applied irriga- tion water for crops having seasonal consumptive use requirements of up to 26 inches. Using the post-project (equilibrium condition) irrigation water maximum salinity concentration (EC = 0.98 mmho/cm), a weighted average conductivity, EC(rw+ iw), was computediw for rainfall (EC ) and irrigation water (EC. ). The following relationship was used to zztermine the required leach$& fraction(LF): LF = EC (rw+ iw) 5ECe-1 251 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) ASSINIBOINE RIVER AT PORTAGELA PRAIRIE, MANITOBA (MAY-SEPT. CONDITIONS-IRRIGATION SEASON) T DS PRE-PROJECT POST-PROJECT POST-PROJECTPOST-PROJECT PRE-PROJECT TDS (mg/l> EQUILIBRIUM (mg/l> PEAK LEACHING 453 476 478 476 453 574 531 505 (AVG) 569 590(AVG) 602 (AVG) 520 588 597 506 64 9 671 513 931(MAX) 666 691 1024 (MAX) ELECTROCONDUCTIVITY OF IRRIGATION WATER ECiw = mmho/cm CONDITION AVERAGE MAXIMUM Pre-Pro j ect 0.79 N /A Equilibrium 0.92 1.45 Peak Leaching 0.94 1.60 25 2 ATTACHMENT D.V.4 (CONTINUED) LEACHING FRACTION DETERMINATIONS ASSINIBOINE RIVER AT PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE, MANITOBA Minimum Leaching Fraction Associated with Maintenance of Specified Salinity Levels in the Active Root Zone Using the Maximum Anticipated Salinity Concentration to Occur Under Post-Project Equilibrium Conditions Presently Irrigated EC (mmhos/cm)-Salinity Leaching ** Crops At Yfeld Decline Threshold Fraction(%) Carrots 1.10 0.18 Onion 1.2 0.15 Cole 1.8 0.09 Celery No data Parsnip No data Turnip No data Potato 1.7 Small Fruit 1.5 Nursery No data Other Crops with Irrigation Potential Beans 1.0 0.18 Beans (Field) 1.0 0.18 Clover 1.5 0.11 Pepper 1.5 0.11 Lettuce 1.3 0.13 Sweet Potato 1.5 0.11 Sweet Corn 1.7 0.10 Orchard Grass 1.5 0.11 Toma to 2.5 0.06 Broccoli 2.8 0.06 F1 ax 1.7 0.10 Broad Bean 1.6 0.11 Alfalfa 2.0 0.10 Wild Rye 2.7 0.06 Wheat 6.0 0.03 ** The leaching fraction computations are based on rainfall during the growing season being about equal in volume to that of applied irriga- tion water for crops having seasonal consumptive use requirements of up to 26 inches. Using the post-project (equlibrium condition) irrigation water maximum salinity concentration (EC= 1.45 mmho/cm) iw , a weighted average conductivity,EC(rw + iw), was computed for rainfall (EC ) and irrigation water (EC.w). The following relationship was useZwto determine the required feaching fraction(LF) : LF = EC(rw + iw) 5EC -1 e 253 ATTACHMENT D.V.5. DAMAGE TO AGRICULTURE DUE TO INCREMENTAL FLOODING ON THE SOURIS RIVER General Based on the following analysis it is estimated that current flooding along the Manitoba portion of the Souris River results in an average annual agricultural damage $79,000.of Annual agricultural damages along the Souris River were estimated for the period from1936 to 1974. Damages were calculated using discharge- flooded area relationships for each of the five reaches fromU.S. the border to Hartney and the available recorded and reconstructed flows. The discharge-flooded area curves used in the analysis are shown on Figures 1 to 3. Spring Flooding Along the Manitoba portion of the Souris River floods do not usually cause direct damage to crops as flooding occurs prior to planting. However, inundation of croplands delays planting until the water recedes and soils dry. A portion of the season normally available for the crop to mature is lost. The delay in planting may so be prolonged that not enough of the growing season remains for any crop production to be possible. Prolonged spring flooding also causes damage to pasture and hay lands. In the case of pasture land damage is in the form of a reduction in the number of pasture-days and in the case of hay land it is in the form of a reduction in yield. Summer Damages Most of the summer damage results from flooding of pastures and hay land affected is located in the Souris River reach between the international boundary and Coulter. In this reach the channel capacity is only about150 cfs. Methodology Information on cropping patterns and yields during flood-free years was provided by the Manitoba Department of Agriculture(107, 108). Crop production costs were obtained from the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba (109). Fixed production costs such as land costs and taxes were excluded. The land uses and production costs used in the analysis are shown in TablesI and 11. 254 Spring Damages Areas under cultivation inundated after May 1st to 25April were considered as subject to flooding.A period of twenty days was allowed for land to drain and crops to be seeded prior 15,to Maythe date at which it has been found athat delay in seeding can result in reduced crop yields. The maximum damage per acre sustained awith crop could not be planted before June 20 was considered equivalent to the net income per acre, plus the additional summer fallowing costs. Under1975 prices and conditions a weighted income per acre of $51.10 was obtained by multiplying the unit price for each crop by the yield per acre, subtracting the crop's production cost and weighting it by land use. With the addition of$3.30 Tor summer fallowing costs, the maximum loss per acre was considered to be$54.40. Relationships for the percentage decrease in yields versus the number of days delay in planting were based on experimental data provided by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, and the University of Manitoba supplemented by information from the May, 1975 Stow's Associates report, "A Study of Flood Control Benefits, Gretna-hltona Reach, Pembina River". Using the seasonal crop damage curve shown in (Figure 4), damages were calculatedfor each flood assuming seeding in each reach occurred 500 in acre increments. It is felt that this assumption is valid since narrow strips of land are being flooded and land ownership has not been considered. For pasture land, the total loss in pasture days has been assessed as being equivalent to the reduction in yield of hay land for the same period of inundation. June1 has been estimated as the first day in which flooding will affect full production and August 15 has been estimated as the date which flooding would result in a complete loss of production (107, 110,111). The maximum loss was assumed at $25 per acre and the incremental acreage affected was assumed25 acres.at Summer Damages Summer floods which inundated seeded cultivated areas for a duration of seven days or longer after June 20 were assumed to result in a total crop loss. An additional damage of $12.63 resulting from lost seeding costs was assumed for areas lost during summer flooding. Summer floods which inundated hay or pasture lands for a duration of 12 days or longer were assumed to cause a loss total in hay production. 255 Incremental Agricultural Damage Resulting from GDU The addition ofGDU flows would increase the average annual peak flooded area by approximately 200 acres. The incremental agricultural damages resulting fromGDU flows were estimated asthe difference in the damage resulting from historic flows and that resulting from historic plus GDU flows. The addition of GDU flows would increase the existing average annual damageof $79,000 by approximately $9,600. Of this increase approximately $5,900 would be cultivated lands and approximately $3,700 would be to pasture or hay lands. Using an economic multiplier of 2.5 (112), the total primary and secondary damages are estimatedto be $24,000 annually. A breakdown of the damages according to location and land use is shownon Table 111. In addition to this quantifiable damage,an increase in the frequency of flooding could cause an alteration in the existing grassland varieties. Without GDU flows the reach between theU.S. border and Coulter did not experience flooding 13in of the 39 years from 1936 to 1975. With the addition of GDU return flows, some flooding would have been experienced in allof the 39 years. Assuming that 30 consecutive days of flooding for one out of every two years would change the vegetative patterns, the acreage affected by the 30-day extent of flooding would have been increased from96 acres to 190 acres. 25 6 n m 0 rl oom 0 00- 0 4 U oom 0 OOh 0 rn al u a, 01 W w d d w u L 4 5 n lx m W tr:uo 4 4 Pi W p: U 0i2 E: m U 0 0 00 0 b U z 0 00 0 H VI c C m dm (" U m mCJ m 0 LIu G? P4m 0 crr U 0 a x a0 0 u !-I cd U sdJ Table2. LOSS OF PRODUCTIONCOST FOR SEEDED ACRES LOST IN FLOODING Production Cost Weighted Crop to Seeding Percentage of Crop Average 1972 1975 Wheat $ 9.38 $14.73 46 $ 6.68 Barley 11.94 18.75 15 2.81 Flax 8.90 13.97 11 1.54 Specialty 14.90 23.39 3 0.70 Crops COTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE $11.73 258 Table 3. TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL FLOOD DAMAGE ALONG THE SOURIS RIVER (1936-1974) Damage to Damage to Total Reach Pastureand Hay Land Cultivated Land Damage Westhope 8283 1016 9299 Peninsula 1793 8960 10753 Melita 1391 22605 23996 Lauder 3468 31613 35081 Hartney 1121 1121 TOTAL $79,100 INCREMENTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL AGRICULTWL FLOOD DAMAGE ALONG THE SOURIS RIVER AS THE RESULTOF GDU (1936-1974) Damage to Damage to To tal Reach Pasture and Hay Land Cultivated Land Damage Westhope 1729 89 1818 Peninsula 648 860 1508 Melita 179 2 658 2837 Lauder 787 2331 3118 Hartney 350 0 350 TOTAL $9,600 TotalPrimary and Secondary Damages assuming a multiplier effect of 2.5 $24,000 259 I i .. I 262 ATTACHMENT D.P.5 I- 1 t 1 ""1"I I 263 ATTACHMENT 0.9. ATTACHMENT D.V.6. POTENTIALBENEFITS OFINCREASED STREAMFLOW-IRRIGATION Developmentof the GDU will yield additional flows to the Sourisand Red rivers. Ifthese flows can be considered as "firm",they wouldprovide some ofthe irrigable lands in the two river basins.In determiningthe quantity of land which could be developed, it hasbeen assumed that 60% ofthe additional flows from GDU couldbe captured from the rivers, andthat the water requirementfor irrigation is 8 cfs per 640 acres. Also, it hasbeen assumed that the development of lands would bebased on the lowest firm water yieldwhich occurs in May, andthat all operatorswould irrigate at the same time. If a rotationalirrigation schedule were adopted,additional acres could likely be irrigated. The May throughSeptember flow data are shown in thefollowing two tables: TABLE 1. SOURIS RIVER NEAR WESTHOPE Modified May June July Aug . Sept. ModifiedHistoric Flow (cfs)873 560 295 127 65 With GDU ReturnFlow (cfs) 982 726 466 302 243 Additional Flow109 (cfs) 166 171 175 178 60% of Additional Flow (cfs)65.4 99.6 102.6 105 106.8 TABLE 2. RED RIVER ATEMERSON Modified May June July Aug . Sept. ModifiedHistoric Flow (cfs)10,253 6,326 3,879 1,914 1,701 With GDU Return Flow (cfs)10,293 6,372 3,936 1,974 1,763 Additional Flow (cfs) 40 46 57 60 62 60%Additional of Flow (cfs)2.4 27.6 34.2 36 37.2 In theSouris River Basin,5,232 acres couldbe placed under irrigationusing the foregoing criteria. Similarlyin the Red River Basin, 1,920 acres couldbe placed under irrigation. 264 ATTACHMENT D.V.7. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The capability classification is thegrouping of soils to show, in a general way, theiragriculture suitability. It is based on the potentials and limitations of the soils, risk ofdamage when they are used,and the way theyrespond to management. The landcapability classification provides three levels ofgeneralization: 1. The capability class shows thesuitability for major uses (cropland,grassland, woodland) and the degree of limitation, withthe problem becoming progressively greater from Class I to Class VIII. 2. The capability subclass shows thekind of problemcausing the landto be in a class greaterthan I. Foursubclasses are usedin this report. Risks of erosion are subclass e; excess water problems are subclass w; unfavorableroot zone or soil problems are sublcass s; andweather or climate limitations (shortgrowing season or shortage of precipitation) are subclass c. Thedominant subclass is used,with e takingprecedence over w, s, and c; w takingprecedence over s and c; and s takingprecedence over c. The tablesin this report show only landcapability class andsubclass. 3. The landcapability unit is a groupingof soils that have about the same influenceon production and responses to systems of management of common cultivatedcrops and pasture plants. Soils i.n anyone capability unit are adaptedto the same crops and same management practices. Long time yieldsfor individual soils in a unitunder comparable managementdo not vary more than 25 percent. Land capabilityunits were usedin making thisstudy but are notpresented in this report. LAND CAPABILITYCLASSES Land suited for cultivation andother uses Class I: Soilsin Class I havefew limitations that restrict their use. Soils in this class are suited to a widerange of plants and may beused safely for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland,and wildlife. The soils are nearlylevel and erosion hazard(wind or water) is low.They are deep, well drained and easily worked.They hold water well and are either well supplied withplant nutrients or highly responsive to fertilizer. In North Dakota all thesesoils occur in irrigated areas thathave adequate supply of water. 265 Class 11: Soilsin Class I1 have some limitationsthat reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices.Soils in this class requirecareful soil management, includingconservation practices to prevent deterioration or to improve air and water relations when thesoils are cultivated. The limitations are fewand thepractices easy to apply. The soils are suitableto use for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife. All soilsin Class I1 aredeep, permeable, and have high water-holdingcapacities. Subclass IIe: Containsfour groups of soils: (1) Medium textured soils on threeto six percent slopes with moderate suscep- tibilityto water erosion. (2) Coarseloams (seven to 20 percent clay)on zero to six percent slopes and fine textured soils (35 percentor more clay)on three to six percent slopes. They are moderatelysusceptible to wind erosion. (3) Medium and finetextured soilssubject to occasional stream over-flow.They are moderately subjectto channelling or sediment deposition. (4) Medium textured soils that are calcareouson zero to six percent slopes and fine texturedcalcareous soils on threeto six percent slopes. They are moderately susceptible to wind erosion. Subclass IIw: Contains medium and finetextured soils onnearly level slopes. They absorbmoisture readily, are the mostproductive non-irrigated soils in North Dakota. The lengthof growingseason and moisture supply imposes some limitations on the kindsof crop grown.They are usedprincipally for wheat and barley production. Subclass 11s: Containsfine textured (over 35 percent clay)soils onzero to three percent slopes. They absorbmoisture slowlybut have high available water capacity.These soils are hard when dry and sticky when wet. They are difficult to till but a good seedbedcan be prepared if operations are done when the soil is moist.These soils are moderatelysusceptible to wind erosion. Subclass IIc: Containsdeep, medium andmoderately fine (20-35 percentclay) soils onzero to three percent slopes. They absorbmoisture readily, and are easily tilled, andhave high available water capacity.These soils are resistantto windand water erosion. They are well tomoderately well drained.Their majorlimitation is climate(temperature and rainfall). Class 111: Soils in Class I11 have severe limitations thatreduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices,or both. 266 Soils in Class 111 havemore restrictions than those in Class I1 and when usedfor cultivated crops, the conservation practices are usually more difficultto apply andmaintain. They are suitableto use for cultivated crops, pasture, woodland, range or wildlife. Subclass ILIe: Containsfive groups of soils (1) Deep, medium and finetextured soils on six to nine percent slopes. They are highly susceptible to water erosionand require such practices as stubblemulch tillage, contour cultivation, terracing, etc. (2) Deep,moderately coarse textured soils on zero to six percent slopes. They are highlysusceptible to wind erosionand susceptible to water erosionon the slopes over three percent gradient. (3) Moderatelycoarse textured soils that receive occasional overflow whichdamages crops, causes channelling, or deposition of sediment. (4) Medium depth, medium texturedsoil over gravel on three to six percentslopes. (5) Moderatelycoarse medium depthsoil over gravel onzero to six percent slopes. Subclass IIIw: Containswetlands that require complex drainagefor continuing cultivation. They occur as depressionsin the landscape which receive surface runoff and may also receive seepagefrom watertables. The soilsin this group vary in texture frommoderately coarse to fine. Drainage is feasible on all the areas in Class IIIw butthey also produce high yields ofwetland grassesand waterfowl without drainage. Subclass 111s: Containssix groups of soils which limit thenormal root growth of cultivated crops: (1) The soilsin this group are a complexof solonized soils with dispersed clay subsoils andnormal soils on gentle slopes. A few areas are on slopesin thesix to nine percent gradient group. The surfacesoils are medium ormoderately fine textured. (2) The soilsin this group are a complexof deep, moderately sandy soils and medium depth or shallowsoils with dispersed claypan subsoils. They typically occur on less thansix percent slopes, but on sixto nine percent slopesin a fewplaces. These soils are also highly susceptible to wind erosion. (3) The soils in thisgroup are medium depth loam soilsover coarse sand and gravel. Crops usually do not penetrate thesesoils morethan 24 inches. They occur on zeroto three percentslopes and are moderatelyor highly susceptible to wind erosion. (4) The soilsin this group are moderatelysaline and containseepage waters forvariable periods. The salt content increaseswith soil depth. Deep drainage andgrowth of salt-tolerant crops are necessaryto improve these soils. (5) Thisgroup of soils is onrecently deposited sediments which receive frequent deposition of raw material fromhigher lands. They occurprincipally below badlandescarpments and are very low in organic matter. They are 267 low inavailable nutrients and take water slowly. (6) Medium depth clayeysoils over bedded shale on zero to three percent slopes. The crop plant roots generally penetrate this soil less than 24 inches. The soils are drouthyand have a highsusceptibility to erosion. SubclassIIIc: Contains well drained, medium and moderatelyfine textured (20 to 35 percentclay) soils onzero to threepercent slopes. They are friablesoils that absorb moisture . readily andhave high available water capacity.These soils are resistantto windand water erosion.Their major limitation is climate (temperatureand rainfall). They occurin areas which havean average annual precipitation of less than 15 inches. Class IV: Soilsin Class IV havevery severe limitations that restrict thechoice of plants, require very careful management, orboth. The restrictionsin use for these soils are greaterthan those soils in Class I11 and thechoice of plants is more limited. When these soils are cultivated, more careful management is required andconservation practices are more difficult to apply and maintain. Soils in Class IV are suitableto use for crops, pasture, woodland, range or wildlife. Subclass IVe: Containsthree groups of soils: (1) Deep, medium and finetextured soils on nine to 15 percentslopes in easternpart of state, and nine to 12 percentslopes in western part of state. They are usuallymoderately eroded where cultivated, have a very high susceptibility to water erosion, and are moderately susceptibleto wind erosion.Also included in this group are thin soils with light colored plow layers on three to nine percent slopes. They are medium textured,limy, and very highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. (2) Deep, sandysoils on zero to six percent slopes. They have a veryhigh susceptibility to wind erosionand are usuallymoderately eroded where cultivated. Included with this group are deep,moderately sandy soils on six to nine percent slopes. They are veryeasily eroded bywind or water. (3) Deep, sandy soils onzero to three percent slopes that are occasionallyflooded, channelled,or receive deposition. They are bestsuited for hay or pasture use with occasional cultivation. Subclass IVw: Are soilsreceiving runoff waters in quantities that makethem suitablefor late-seeded cultivated crops about 50 percentof the years. They occurin depressions not feasibleto drain. Also included in this group are similar soils thathave watertables which recede early in the growing season. 268 Subclass IVs: Containsthree groups of soils:(1) Medium depthsandy soils with dispersed sandy clay that limits root growth.These soils are veryhigh, susceptible to wind erosion and are drouthy. They occurprincipally on gentle slopes. (2) Medium depthsandy soils with coarse sand or gravel substrata at a depthof 20 to 26 inches. They are veryhighly susceptible to wind erosionand are drouthy. (3) Lightcolored lakebed soils. They are low inorganic matter and fertility. Land Limitedin Use-Generally Not Suited for Cultivation Class V: Soilsin Class V have little orno erosion hazardbut have other limitations that are impracticalto remove and that limit theiruse largely to pasture, range, or wildlife. Soils in this class inNorth Dakota are wet from water ponding, seepage, or watertables, and are insubclass Vw. They produce wetlandtypes of grasses and are usefulfor grazing, hay production indry years, and waterfowl production. Class VI: Soilsin Class VI have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited for cultivation and limit their uselargely to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife. Physicalconditions of soils placed in Class IV are such that it is practicalto apply range or pasture improvements, if needed,such as seeding,liming, fertilizing,and water controlwith contourfurrows, drainage, ditches, diversions, or water spreaders. Soils in Class VI havecontinuing limitations that cannot be corrected,such as (1) steep slopes,(2) severe erosionhazard, (3) effectsof past erosion, (4) stoniness,(5) shallow rooting zone, (6) excessivewetness or overflow, (7) low-moisturecapacity, (8) salinityor alkalinity, or (9) severeclimate. Due toone or more of these limitations these soils are notgenerally suited for cultivatedcrops. Butthey may beused for pasture, range, woodland, orwildlife. cover or some combination of these. Subclass VIe: Includesthree groups of soils:(1) Thin, medium and finetextured soils on nineto 25 percent slopes. Also included are deep, medium texturedsoils on 12 to 25 percentslopes inwestern North Dakota, and on 15 to 25 percentslopes in eastern NorthDakota. They are highlysusceptible to water erosion and are usuallymoderately or severely eroded where they have been cultivated. (2)Thin, sandy or sandsoils on less than 25 percentslopes and deep,sandy soils on nine to 25 percentslopes. They are highly susceptible to wind erosionand are usuallyseverely eroded where cultivated. The soilsin this group are moderatelysusceptible to water erosion. (3) Deep,sandy, medium orfine textured soils on channelledbottomland. Cultivation of these soils causes frequent 269 channelchanges of intermittent or permanent streams. Many areas of these soils are coveredwith hardwood forest with an understory of grass. Subclass VIS: Containsfour groups of soils: (1) Shallow, medium textured soils with dispersed clay subsoils underlain by highlysalty layers onzero to nine percent slopes. They are drouthy andcontain numerous barren spots. (2) Shallow sandy soils with dispersedclay or sandy clay loam subsoils underlain by salty layers onzero to nine percent slopes. They are drouthy,contain numerous barrenspots and are susceptibleto wind erosion. (3) Shallow sandyand medium textured soils underlain by gravelor coarse sand, on nearlylevel to steep slopes. These soils are highlysusceptible to wind erosionif cultivated and are drouthy. (4) Stronglysaline soilsthat support only salt-tolerant grasses. Class VII: Soilsin Class VI1 havevery severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and restrict their use largelyto grazing, woodland, or wildlife. Physicalconditions of soils in Class VI1 are suchthat it is impracticalto apply such pasture or range improvements as seeding,liming, fertilization, and water controlmeasures such as contourfurrows, ditches, diversions, or water spreaders.Soil restrictions are more severethan those in Class VI. Subclass VIIe: Containsthree groups of soils: (1) Thin andshallow medium to fine textured soils onmore than 25 percent slopes. The surface is usuallybroken and contains outcrops of shaleor limestone. These soils are highlysusceptible to water erosion.(2) Thin sand soils on short choppy steep slopes. They support a thincover of grass and become active sanddunes if the soilcover is removed. (3) Thinsand or sandy soils that are easily eroded by eitheradjacent streams or wind. Subclass VIIS: Containsfour groups of soils: (1) Severelyeroded medium texturedsoils with dispersed clay pan sub- soilsunderlain by saltylayers. The surface is brokenand very highlysusceptible to water erosion.(2) Severely eroded sandy texturedsoils with dispersed sandy clay loam or clay subsoils underlain by saltylayers. They are highlysusceptible to wind erosion. (3) Verydrouthy, very shallow medium andsandy textured soilsover gravel on slopes greater than 25 percent. (4) Deep or medium depth soils that contain too many stonesfor economical land clearing. They produce good yields of nativegrasses and are resistantto erosion. 27 0 Class VIII: Soils andland forms in Class VI11 have limitationsthat preclude their use for commercial plant production and restricttheir use to recreation, wildlife, water supply,or aestheticpurposes. Subclass VIIIe: Containsoutcrops of shale, limestone, or othersoft rock which produce little or novegetation. These are thebarren portions of thebadlands that produce large amounts ofsediment. Also included are mine dumps left from stripmining of coal. Subclass VIIIw: Contains areas of fresh water marshthat producecoarse aquatic vegetation and little or nograss. Subclass VIIIs: Containsdispersed and very strongly saline or alkaline areas thatproduce little or no vegetation. . 271 ATTACHMENT D.VI.l CURRENT RURAL DOMESTICWATER USE, SURFACE WATER SUPPLIED The rural domestic water use from the Souris, Red and Assiniboine rivers and from the southern basin of Lake Winnipeg and the south portion of Lake Manitoba has been estimated. The estimate includes use by Indian Reservations, farms and other rural populace and settlements without distribution systems (Table1). A. Red River, Sheyenne, and Wild Rice Rivers (to Canadian/U.S. Border) There is no documented surface water use for domestic (rural) purposes from these rivers. Estimates of groundwater use are shown in Attachment D.VI.2. B. Red River (from Canadian/U.S. Border to Lake Winnipeg) There are two reported cases of rural domestic water use from the Red River. One case involves a pumping facility designed to supply three homes in the Rural Municipality of Montcalm and the other involves filling a dugout, near Dominion City, from the Red River to supply one farmhouse (AttachmentD.VI.2). C. Souris River (from confluence with Wintering River to Canadian/ U. S. Border) There are no documented use from surface water sources in this area. Estimates of use for domestic purposes from ground- water sources is shown in Attachment D.VI.2. D. Souris River (from Canadian/U.S. Border to Assiniboine River) There are no documented cases of rural domestic water use from the Souris River.An estimate of use from groundwater sources is shown in Attachment D.VI.2. E. Assiniboine River (from Souris River to Red River) All known usage from the Assiniboine River occurs between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg. There are three settlements, a mobile home trailer park and a campground.Two of the settlements, Barickman and Lakeside, obtain their water from wells which are maintained by seepage from the river while the Iberville settlement has just installed a treatment system. The Whitehorse Plains trailer park treats water from the Assiniboine to service seventy- seven trailers and to supply the Jellystone Park campground. 272 It should be noted that treatment facilities are pres- ently being considered for other colonies in the area. A substantial increase in usage could be expectedif the Iberville Colony treatment plant proves successful. Estimates of use from surface water sources is shown in this Attachment. Use from groundwater sources has been estimated as shown in AttachmentD.VI.2. F. Lake Winnipeg (South Basin) The only reported usersof water from the south basin of Lake Winnipeg are the Hollow Water Indian Reserve and the settlement of Seymourville. A filter trench is used to draw water from the Lake. Except for the school, water is hauled by truck throughout the reserve. Estimated surface water use is shown in this Attachment. Groundwater use within a zone five miles of backthe shoreline is shown in AttachmentD.VI.2. G. Lake Manitoba (South Basin) Two Indian Reserves obtain water from the southern portion of Lake Manitoba. At the Sandy Bay Reserve water is supplied to the school and fifteen houses located in town. The remainderof the residents carry their water from a stand pipe. The Ebb and Flow Reserve is serviced aby water truck which fills two 45-gallon drums located in each home. Estimated surface water use is shown in this Attachment, groundwater use in AttachmentD.VI.2. 273 TABLE 1. CURRENT RURAL DOMESTIC WATER CONSUMPTION FROM SURFACE WATER SOURCES (ALL WATER SYSTEMS EXCEPTA & C) . To tal Population Usage Withdrawal Withdrawal Treatment LocationTreatment Served gpd gpd gpd B.Red River Direct Intake R.M. of Montcalm* 12 42 500 3 houses Dugout Filling City*Dominion 4 42 160 660 D. SourisRiver --- " "_ "_ E. AssiniboineYes Iberville Colony River Parish of Baie St. Paul 150 42 6,300 Seepage Wells Barickman Colony Parish of Baie St. Paul150 42 6,300 Seepage Wells Lakeside Colony Parish of Baie St. Paul150 42 6,300 Yes Whitehorse Plains Trailer Park 3 08 42 12,940 Yes Jellystone Park 4 00 84010 35 4,000 F. Lake Winnipeg Filter Tren ch Hollow Water ReserirTe 405 15 6,075 Direct Intake Seymourville 108 15 1 620 L7 695 G. Lake Manitoba Direct Intake Sandy Bay Reserve 1,658 15 24,870 Direct Intake Ebb and Flow Reserve 576 15 33,5108 640 NOTE: Figures shown are in imperial gallons. ATTACHMENT D.VI.2. CURRENT AND PROJECTEDRURAL DOMESTIC WATER USE FROM GROUNDWATER SOURCES (ALL WATER SYSTEMS). 1975 1985 2000 Total To tal Total Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Water Systems I.G.P.D.* I.G.P.D.* I.G.P.D.* *A Red River (U.S.) 1,317,000 1,555,000 1,590,000 B. Red River (Canadian) 855 ,000 715 ,000 520 000 *C. Souris River (U.S.) 86 ,000 84 000 75 ,000 D. Souris River (Canadian) 185 ,000 155 ,000 112 ,000 E. Assiniboine River 375 ,000 313 ,000 228 ,000 F. LakeWinnipeg (South Basin) 254,000 223 ,000 191 y 000 G. LakeManitoba (South Portion) 200,000 184 000 174 ,000 * ImperialGallons Per Day 275 27 6 INDIAN BAND COMMUNITIESTHAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE GARRISONDIVERSION UNIT ATTACHMENT 0.m. 3A ATTACHMENT D.VI.3B. MANITOBA INDIAN BAND COMMUNITIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE GARRISON DIVERSION PROJECT ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ Reserve NameReserve 6Source No. On ofsupply DomesticWater Community Name Band Name WhichCommunity Located Other BandReserve Lands Data Source No. 1 DataSource No. 2 Berens River Berens River Berens River 1/13 Pigeon RiverWell#13A Well, lake, river Bloodvein Bloodvein Bloodvein River 1\12 Well, lake No information Brokenhead Brokenhead Brokenhead 1/4 River (water sys) Well Crane River Crane River Crane River 651 Lake No information Dakota Plain Dakota Plain Dakota Plain i/6A Well Well Dakota Tipi Dakota Tipi Dakota Tipi #I River (stand pipe) River Dauphin River Little Saskatchewan Dauphin River #40A Well, lake, pails Well Ebb & Flow Ebb 6 Flow Ebb & Flow 1/52 Lake (stand pipe) Well Fairford Fairford Fairford 150 Fisher Island 650A Lake (water system) No information N FisherRiver Fisher River Fisher River 1\44 Fisher River t44A Lake (water system) No information 4 4 AlexanderFort Fort Alexander Fort Alexander No information No information Grand Rapids Grand Rap ids Grand Rapids 1/33 Well, lake We1 1 Hollow Water Hollow Water Hollow Water b10 Lake Lake Jackhead Jackhead Jackhead 1/43 Well, lake Well Lake Manitoba Lake Manitoba Dog Creek 1/46 Lake (water system) No information Little Black River Little Black River Black River 119 River River Long Plain Long Plain Long Plain 1\6 Well, river Well Poplar River Poplar River Poplar River 1/16 No infomat ion No information Roseau River Roseau River Roseau River 112 Roseau Rapids #2A Dugout No information Sandy Bay Sandy Bay Sandy Bay /I5 Lake (water system 6 No information stand pipe & pail) Sources: Department of Indian Affairs h Northern Development, Indian and Eskimo Affairs Program, Manitoba RegionHousing Survey, 1974; Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1975. Department of National Health & Welfare, Medical Services, Manitoba Medical FacilityProfile, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1975. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Indian and Eskimo Affairs Program, Manitoba Region,Planning Program, June 2, 1976. ATTACHMENT D.VI.3C. POPULATIONSOF INDIAN BANDS LOCATED IN THE STUDY AREA, 1974. Band Name Population 1974 Berens River 835 Bloodvein 410 Brokenhead 482 Crane River 162 Ebb and Flow 576 Fairf ord 848 Fisher River 1,194 Fort Alexander 2 ,341 Grand Rap ids 314 Hollow Water 4 05 Jackhead 328 Lake Manitoba 573 Long Plain 945 Peguis 2,366 Poplar River 459 Sandy Bay 1,658 TOTAL 13, 896 27 8 ATTACHMENT D.VI.3D. SUMMARY OF WATERUSES BY INDIAN BANDS Do you use Do you use Does anyone Does anyone water from theriver/ inyour inyour the river/ lake for community community lake for drinking swim in the fish in the irrigation water?riverjlake? river/lake? or watering cattle? Crane River yes - pumpYes a little no water from river Ebb & Flow a little no Sandy Bay a lot Yes Lake Manitoba a lot Yes Brokenhead a little Yes Fort: Alexander a little no Hollow Water a lot no Bloodvein a little no Jackhead a lot no Moscow River a little no Little Saskatchewan Yes some Little Black River Yes Yes Fisher River a lot Yes Dakota Plains a lot no Berens River a lot Yes Dakota Tipi a lot Yes Poplar River a lot no Long Plain a little no Source: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1976 Questionnaire results) 279 ATTACHMENT D.VII.l. METHODOLOGYFOR DETERMINING RECREATIONAL WATER USE Methodology Two interactingcomponents were evaluatedin this study. The first ofthese is thesupply or resource base, which refers to the general physical characteristics of the areas in which recre- ationcurrently takes place and thecapability of these areas to sustainfuture levels ofuse. On theother hand are theusers of theresource base, referring to present and future participants in different activities within the supply area. The recreational supply base for the purpose of this study is defined as a strip ofland one-half mile on either side of therivers of the Canadian portion of the study area andwithin one-half mile of theshores ofLake Winnipeg (southern basin) and LakeManitoba (southern portion). Also included is a strip ofland one-half mile on eitherside of thePortage Diversion. It is in these areas that recreation is most likely to be affected by changesin water quantityor quality. The area is indicatedin AttachmentFigure D.VII.l. TheCanada Land Inventory (CLI) was utilizedto determine thecapability of southern Manitoba to support different recreational activities (15). The generalizedrecreation capability of southern Manitoba,in terms ofthe CLI recreationclassification system is shown in AttachmentFigure D.VII.2. In orderto determine the potential of the area to accommodate futureuse the CLI information was compared to the map of recreationpotential, Attachment Figure D.VII.4.This method is somewhat elementary,and purely subjective as the specific quality characteristics of sites were notevaluated. The conceptof participation rates was used in the determination of the numberof persons participating in the differ- ent recreational activities and specific participation rates for thestudy area were notavailable. For purposes of this study, provincial rates forManitoba were used. The sourceof these was theCanadian Outdoor Recreation Demand Study (CORDS), since this surveycontained rates directlypertaining to Manitoba. Other sources were examined forcomparative purposes only. The rates for all sources are indicatedin Attachment Table D.VII.l. For purposesof this study the CORDS rates employed were themost recentavailable. For most activities thisrefers to 1972 rates; for swimmingand waterskiing1969 rates were usedand for nature interpretationof 1967 rates were used. Rates, however,do not quantify the actual volume of usewithin the study area. This is dependentupon the numberof dayseach participant takes part in a givenactivity. Information 280 TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF PARTICIPATION RATES (X OF POPULATION) FOR THREE REGIONSIN NORTH AMERICA Act ivity CORD Study TORPSStudyActivity CORD Study ORRRC Study Mani toba Ontario North CentralManitobaNorthOntario U.S.A. 1967 1969 1972 19731972 1969 1967 1960 ”- Swimming 26 42 (-1 64.9 42 Boating 13 11 22 33.1 27 Canoeing 2 3 9 16.2 3 Sailing (-1 1 4 6.0 2 Waterskiing 5 4 (-1 9.9 6 Cot taging 5.7 units/100households (1971 Census: VacationHomes) 17 36 27.6 Camping 36 14 17 7 Picnicking59 37 38 (-1 (-1 Nature Interp.11 (-1 (-1 (-) 15 Sightseeing52 30 45 (-1 47 Skiing 2 1 6 8.1 2 Bicycling (-1 7 26 (-1 10 Horse Riding8 (-1 2 9.6 5 281 on the frequency of participation in different activities was not readilyavailable for Manitoba (National data only), therefore U.S. basedinformation on the average numberof days each participant takespart in an activity was used.This information was developed by the U.S. OutdoorRecreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) intheir National Recreation Survey. By applying CORDS thepartic- ipation rates tothe base population (i.e. southern Manitoba) and by multiplyingthe product of these by theaverage number of days in which each participant takes part in an activity derives the total numberof “recreation man-days” related to that activity. Thesefigures are shown in AttachmentTable D.VII.2. (Inaddition thistable includes supplementary information in which man-days were estimated using an alternate method*and by the LakeWinnipeg Recreation Demand Study). In using the method to estimate recreation participation thebase population was assumed to bethe total population of southernManitoba. It was also assumed thatthis population, as a potentialuser of the study area’s recreationalresources, consti- tutes theonly demand on theresource. Due tothe absence of adequatedata, this assumption ignores the effect of bothin- and out-migration.This is equivalentto assuming that the numberof personsentering southern Manitoba for recreational purposes equals the number leavingthe area, and may exaggeratethe estimates. The total man-days estimated by the method outlined abovemust be disaggregated and allocated to the individual sub- basinswithin the study area. The location of currentfacilities and sites for various activities was used as theprimary criteria forthis method.This procedure is admittedlyquite subjective. However, until more detailed data become available,such as that beingproduced for the Lake Winnipeg Recreation Demand Study,this method will provide at least a generalpicture of the intensity of recreational use in various parts of the study area. * This methoddeveloped by the SRRRB Studycalculates the average numberof times the total population participates in an activity and effectivelycombines total base population and participation rates. The results are somewhat largerthan the CORDS-based methodology.However, since the CORDS rates pertaindirectly to Manitoba, it was considered more accurate. The figuresfrom the LakeWinnipeg Recreation Demand Study are smaller than those derivedfrom CORDS (TableD.5). This was expected as CORDS rates reflect provincial participation rates, notthose of specific areas. 28 2 TABLE 2. CALCULATION OF RECREATION MAN-DAYS USING THREE METHODS LakeWinnipeg Recreation CORDS-based Methodology SRRRB-based Methodology Demand Study p er Recreation RecreationRecreationDays per Recreati n ParticipationTarticipant Man-Days** Days pTr Man-Days**Man-Days 9 Activity Rate (X) (ActiveMonths)(Millions) Person (Millions j (Millions) Swimming 42 11.1 J-A 3.66 6.16 4.81 1.29 Boating 22 9.9 J-N 1.68 3.70 2.88 .10 Canoeing 9 2.2 M-N .15 .23 .18 .03 Sailing 4 2.9 J-A .09 .20 .15 .02 Waterskiing 4 3.8 J-A .ll .70 .55 .03 Fishing 38 15.4 M-N 4.56 N.A. - 1.46 N Cottaging See Note 250/Unit 1.70 N.A. - 1.46 co w Camping 36 5.3 J-A 1.48 1.15 90 .45 Hunting 12 6.4 Mr-M .61 N.A. - N.A. Picnicking 59 4.0 J-A 1.84 5.62 4.38 .44 NatureInt. 11 8.9 J-N .76 2.76 2.15 N.A. Sightseeing 52 10.3 J-N 4.17 6.16 4.81 N.A. Skiing 6 .5 D-F .02 .11 .09 N.A. Bicycling 26 31.4 J-A 6.44 9.28 7.24 N.A. Horse Riding 8 9.3 J-N .56 3.24 2.53 .02 Note:Cottaging inthe study area is limited.Approximately 6,800 units exist in the area. 1971Census Data indicatethat 5.7% of householdshave a vacation home. Sources: 1 (85); 2 (65) ; 3 (52) * RMD = Population x Participation rate x Activity Days perparticipant. ** RMD = Population x Activity Days perperson. To evaluate water quantity and quality effects of GDU on recreationalactivity, knowledge of future recreational potential anduse is required. The methodsused to derive the recreational potential of thestudy area havealready been discussed. Outlined here is themethodology employed to gain some appreciationof future demand or volumeof use. The method is ratherelementary with several assumptions,based on the lack of time trendinformation. It is assumed that: 1. Therewould be no change inthe participation and average activity rate overthe forecasting horizons usedin the study. 2. The supply of recreationalopportunities is unlimitedand places no constraints on future levels of use. Clearly,these assumptions are notcompletely valid, for change will occurin the future as it hasin the past. Methods to project recreational activity have been only recently researched and are inadequatelytested. This method is thebest available giventhe absence of information on how changes will occurand their effects on recreational participation. Attachment D.III.7 contains projections on thecensus populationsfor southern Manitoba. The censusdivision totals for high, medium andlow forecastsfor each of 1975, 1985 and 2000 were multiplied by the joint product of the participation rate and the activity level rate foreach activity (Table D.VII.4) to obtain the estimated numberof recreation man-days for these years. 284 MINNESOTA U.S.A. NORTH DAKOTA U.S.A _I 285 GENERAL1ZED RECREATION CAPABILITY (BASED ON CANADA LAND INVENTORY) H HIGH CAPABILITY M MODERATECAPABILITY L LOW CAPABILITY ATTACHMENT 0.Z. I FIGURE 2 NORTH DAKOTA U.S.A MINNESOTA U.S.A 286 RECREATIONOPPORTUNITIES MAJORRECREATION AREAS MINORRECREATION AREAS INDIVIDUALRECREATION SITES go PICNIC, CAMPING e COTTAGINGAREAS GENERALRECREATION K CANOEING H HUNTING B BOATING F FISHING s SAILING MINNESOTA U.S.A. NORTH DAKOTA U.S.A ATTACHMENT D.m. 1 FIGURE 3 287 RECREATIONPOTENTIAL H HIGH POTENTIAL M MODERATEPOTENTIAL L LOW POTENTIAL ATTACHMENT D.=. I FIGURE 4 ATTACHMENT D.VIII.l: ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS LIST FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND RECREATIONAL USES, MANITOBA In this assessment , the term "wildlife" refers to wild animals(except fish) including vertebrates and invertebrates at species,population and community levels of organization;the term "fish"refers to all fishincluding bait species, commercial species andsport species; the term "recreation"refers to all direct and indirectuses of these animals or their habitats recognized and widelyaccepted as properresource uses by society. A. Recrea.tiona1uses: 1) Hobby trapping. 2) Sporthunting: moose, white-tailed deer, waterfowl and upland game. 3) Sportfishing: angling, archery and skin-diving. 4) Natureinterpretation: viewing, photography, etc. (coveredin chapter D.VII1). 5) Canoeing,camping, etc. (coveredin Chapter D.VIII) B. Commercialuses: Registeredtraplines. Commercial (craft)uses of animals (except fish). Commercial fishing(rough fish, food fish and bait fish). Guiding(hunting, fishing, nature interpretation, etc.). Outfitting(fly-in-camps, resorts, boat rentals, etc.). Frog,snake, turtle and salamandar harvest. Forest value. Apiaries(covered in Chapter D.V). Wild Rice (coveredin Chapter D.V). C. Subsistenceuses: 1) Subsistencetrapping. 2) Subsistencehunting. 3) Subsistencefishing. D. Otheruse values: 1) Educational:nature programs, study areas, research projects, etc. 2) Ecological: rare andendangered species, unique faunal and floralcommunities, etc. 3) Archaeological:historic sites, forts,structures, bison leaps,burial mounds, etc. (coveredin Chapter D. IX) . 289 4) Aesthetics(panorama: wilderness, rapids, meandering river, wooded shoreline,etc.). E. Specialarea designations: 1) Provincialand national parks. 2) Wildlife Management Areas. 3) Provincialand national project areas notyet officially designed. 4) Other sites such as publicshooting grounds, wildlife refuges, IBP sites, etc. 290 0 m co m 0 rl U rl rl b (d N N N In u n n 0 m 4. 03 E-c d m ri v). 0 0 I-m N U m rl Nrl 0 rl rl U ria N rl n n n n 0 I- 0 N rl U rl U v). (It M N 0 0 rn rl U 03 m U rl I- n n m N rl v). N U rl \D rl m rl a co 03 n m a- 0 0 mo \D \D \D m rl NU a N rl N N rl m n n n n N m N rl rl rl (It (It I- U I-U 0 In rl rl m rlm I- rl U rl m d rl n n n n rl I- rl I- (It (It 0 0 0 m U N m ru rl In m 0 n n rl I- (It rn v) rn k rl k k a, (d a, a, a a a a 2 a (d % k !i 2 k U u 4J a, W a, h M h ii h M P (d P ca P (d P k3: P P k rn 0 a, rn c G 2 0 mk B Z k \or) u w !g w G w M ma, c) 0 rl 0 W 0 -p: 0) (d b a U 0 I rn 0 0 0 0 ..~~ 4 z E-c z z 0 k 0 3 0 0 N cA3: 291 ATTACHMENT D.VIII.2 CONTINUED: A2) SPORT HUNTING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. of RMDs: moose 0 0 0 0 4 ,800 0 4 ,800 white-tailed deer 750 2 ,080 1,500 60 560 570 5,520 waterfowl 9 ,700 2,100 1,400 40 1,400 21 ,000 35,640 upland game 500 2 ,500 1 ,000 40 300 300 4 ,640 Amount spent by sport hunters in immediate vicinity for gas, food, lodging,supplies, etc. $621 ,OOO* $133 ,600 $78 ,000 $2,800$141,200 $437,400 $1,414,000 N \D N Amountspent by sport hunters for taxidermy, butchering, dressing, etc. of game. $ 24,000 $ 4,000 $ 1,000 $ 200 $ 1,000 $ 1,800 $ 32,000 Value of furs taken by sport-by hunters. $ 2,250 $ 1,180 $ 2,455 $ 720 $ 2,480 $ 2,600 $ 11,665 1985 PROJECTEDDEMAND No. of RMDs: moose 0 0 0 0 5,112 0 5,112 white-tailed deer 799 2 ,215 1,598 64 596 607 5,879 waterfowl 10,330 2,236 1,490 43 1,490 22 ,365 37 ,954 upland game 533 2,662 1,065 43 316 31 6 4 ,935 Source : (36) * Includes lodge operations ATTACHMENT D.VIII.2 CONTINUED: A2) SPORT HUNTING(CONTINUED): Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals Amount spent by sport hunters in immediate vicinity for gas, food, lodging, supplies, etc. $661,380$142,287$83,072 $2,982$150,280 $465,600 $1,505,601 Amount spent by sport hunters for taxidermy, butchering, dressing, etc. of game of etc. $ 25,561 $ 4,260 $ 1,065 $ 213 $ 1,065 $ 1,917 $ 34,081 Value of furs taken by sportby hunters $ 2,396 $ 1,257 $ 2,534 $ 767 $ 2,641 $ 2,769 $ 12,364 p3 a w 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of RMDs: moose 0 0 0 0 5,509 0 5,509 white-tailed deer 861 2,388 1,720 69 641 654 6,333 waterfowl 11,135 2,567 1,606 46 1,606 24,108 41,068 upland game 574 3,056 1,146 46 34 2 34 2 5,506 Amount spent by sport hunters in immediate vicinity for gas, food, lodging, supplies, etc. $712,945$153,381$89,549 $3,215$161,960 $502,080 $1,623,130 Amount spent by sport hunters for taxidermy, butchering, dressing, etc., of game. $ 27,553 $ 4,592 $ 1,146 $ 229 $ 1,146 $ 2,065 $ 36,731 Value of furs taken by sporthunters $ 2,583 $ 1,355 $ 2,818 $ 827 $ 2,847 $ 2,985 $ 13,415 c ATTACHMENT D.VIII.2 CONTINUED: A3) SPORT FISHING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg Manitoba Total s 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. of RMDs: 50,000 2,000 500 100,000194,500 21,000 21,000 Amount spent by fishermen in immediate vicinity for gas, food, lodging, supplies,bait,etc. $2,500 $10,000 $150,000 $500,000$105,000$105,000$872,500 r-4 W Amount spent by fishermen c- for taxidermy, dressing, etc. of fish.game 0 0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 1985 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of RMDs: 56,180 2,247 562 112,360218,53923,595 23,595 Amount spent by fishermen in immediate vicinity for gas, food, lodging, supplies,bait,etc. $11,235$2,809$168,540 $561,800$117,978 $117,978 $980,340 Amount spent by fishermen for taxidermy, dressing, etc. of game fish.game ofetc. 0 0 $ 1,124 $ 1,124 $ 1,124 $ 1,124 $ 4,496 ATTACHMENT D.VIII.2 CONTINUED: A3) SPORT FISHING (Continued) Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of No. RMDs: 625 2,492 62,408 124 ,618 26,169 26,169 242,431 Amount spent by fishermen in immediate vicinity for N gas, food, lodging, \D cn supplies,bait,etc. $3,115 $12,460 $186,925 $623,090 $130,849$130,849 $1,087,288 Amount spent by fishermen for taxidermy, dressing, etc. of game fish.game ofetc. 0 0 $ 1,246 $ 1,246 $ 1,246 $ 1,246 $ 4,984 Source : (36) ATTACHMENT D.VIII.3. BASELINE COMMERCIAL USE DATA FOR STUDY AREAS Dl) REGISTERED TRAPPING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. of registered traplines 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 No. of registered trappers 0 0 0 0 59 32 91 T otal grossTotal income 0 0 0 0 $ 17,582 $ 9,247 $ 26,829 N \o No. of registered m traplines 24 0 24 No. of registered trappers 8958 31 T otal gross Total income $ 17,230 $ 9,247 $ 26,477 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of registered traplines 21 0 21 No. of registered trappers 52 28 80 Totalgross income $ 15,507 $ 8,322 $ 23,829 Source: (36) ATTACHMENT D.VIII.3. CONTINUED: D2) COMMERCIAL (CRAFT) USE OF ANIMALS Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg Manitoba To tals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND Totalgross income fromcarvings, feather products,leather goods, she lls, etc.shells, 0 0 0 0 $ 10,000 $ 3,000 $ 13,000 1985 PROJECTED DEMAND N Totalgross income \o 4 carvings,from feather products,leather goods, she lls, etc. shells, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND Totalgross income fromcarvings, feather products,leather goods, she lls, etc. shells, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: (36) ATTACHMENT D.VIII.3. CONTINUED: B3) COMMERCIAL FISHING' Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. of Commercial Fishermen: 1) food fish includedwith 0 0 0 1,373 748 2 ,121 2) bait fish LakeManitoba 0 0 10 5 5 20 Total Gross Annual Income : 1) food fish includedwith 0 0 0 $2,593,8912'3$384,0694y5 $2,977,160 2) bait fish LakeManitoba 0 o $ 104,660 $ 20,000 $ 28,000 $ 152,660 h) u3 Percentage of these 03 fishermen who derive their major income from fishing: 1) food fish included with 0 0 0 60-65% 30-40% 2) bait fish Lake Manitoba 0 0 20% 2 0% 2 0% 1 Source : (36, 37 1 ' Includes only walleye, sauger and whitefish(86.8 percent of catch value for1971-76). Average annual gross valueto fishermen, years1971-76. Includes only walleye, sauger and whitefish(67.2 percent of catch value for1971-76). Average annual gross value to fishermen, years1971-76. ATTACHMENT D.VIII.3. CONTINUED: B4) GUIDING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. of guides of No. 80 10 0 0 120 60 270 Total gross annual income : $52,000 from $5,000 from 0 0 $76,000 from $65,000 from $ 198,000 waterfowl white-tailed moose, water- white-tailed hunting and deer and water- fowland deer, water- processing fowl hunting upland game fowl and hunting , uplandgame tu W hunting . W 1985 PROJECTED DEMAND of guidesNo. of 19 157 236 118 530 Total gross annual income : $ 102,440 $ 9,850 $ 149,720 $ 128,050 $ 390,060 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of guides of No. 433 52 651 326 1,462 Total gross annual income : $ $27,186282,734 $ 413,227 $ 353,418 $1,076,565 ~ ~~ ~ Source: (36) ATTACHMENT D.VIII.3. CONTINUED: B5) OUTFITTING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. ofoperators: fly-in-camps 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 mainlandresort 4 26 19 5 30 13 77 boat liveries 2 0 0 6 13 9 30 Totalgross income: fly-in-camps 0 0 0 0 $ 90,000 $ 0 $ 90,000 mainlandresorts $ 92,000 $ 80,000 $ 95,000 $ 10,000 $ 550,000 $ 313,000 $ 1,140,000 boat liveries $ 2,000 0 0 $ 12,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 114,000 Percentage of gross Income derivedfrom fish & wildlife fly-in-camps 0 0 0 0 100% 0 mainland resorts 8.5% 95% 13.85% 80%5.35% 62% boat liveries 90% 0 0 9 0% 90% 9 0% No. ofoperators: fly-in-camps; mainland resorts; boat liveries. Unknown Totalgross income: fly-in-camps 0 0 0 0 $ 177,000 0 $ 177,000 mainlandresorts $ 180,000 $ 157,000 $ 187,000 $ 20,000 $1,092,000 $ 616,000 $ 2,252,000 boat liveries $ 4,000 0 0 $ 24,000 $ 98,000 $ 98,000 $ 224,000 Percentageof gross income derivedfrom fish & wildlife:fly-in-camps; mainland resorts; boat liveries. Unknown Source: (36) ATTACHMENT D .V I1 I. 3. CONTINUED : B5) OUTFITTING (Continued) Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of operators: Unknown f ly-in-camps mainland resorts boat liveries Totalgross income: fly-in-camps 0 0 0 0 $ 490,000 0 $ 490,000 mainlandresorts $ 500,000 $430,000 $ 520,000 $ 55,000 $3,000,000 $1,700,000 $ 6,205,000 boatliveries $ 11,000 0 0 $ 65,000 $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ 616,000 Percentageof gross incomederived from Unknown fish & wildlife fly-in-camps mainland resorts boat liveries Source: (36) 0 0 u3 m 4 u(d 0 H m e 4n m n OM oa, 0 00 OM u3 OM mW On 2 Ln- ohj hl hl> *id W m Pn dm n m M a) 00 ob0 OM oa Lnw hlk nw -a, d d? *a W 0 0 0 n m M rl u3aJ 45 0 0 0 m rln 0 m Ln OM 00 OM m m k u0 m a, ? n M u3 u (d m 0 c W a, a w m 0 .. aJ 4 U 0 M z 3 0 v3 302 hl cn m hl 4 I-l e e ul clt a3 \D h r- 0 \D m c\l e 0 m e hl m e n m hl 4 4 clt (/t m m 0$4 m m m m Pal \D m ul h *n m m clt clt N ul clt W 0 0 e a H ffl H ffl H k Q) 6" 3 a .d a m n (d ffl n rd ffl u3 $4 $4 U 0 m u k W n 4-1 w M 4 0 w U 0 4 0 4 rd .. u rd al 0 ul u U z a, d 0 0 0 b m 2 c-c z E-c 3 0 4 m 303 ATTACHMENT D.VIII.4. CONTINUED: C2) SUBSISTENCE HUNTING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND No. of animals (except fish) taken for sustenance: moose 0 0 0 0 60 20 80 white-tailed deer 20 30 40 20 50 250 410 other animals 100,000 250 100 175 8,000 7,000 115,525 No. of people utilizing (eating) these animals 20 60 20 15 200 300 615 w 1985PROJECTED DEMAND 0 F- No. of animals (except fish) taken for sustenance: moose 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 white-tailed deer 20 30 50 0 100 250 450 other animals 100,000 250 200 200 10,000 5,000 115,650 No. of people utilizing (eating) these animals 50 20 50 0 200 200 520 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND No. of animals (except fish) taken for sustenance: moose 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 white-tailed deer 0 30 30 0 100 250 410 other animals 100,000 200 0 0 5,000 5,000 110,200 ATTACHMENT D.VIII.4. CONTINUED: C3) SUBSISTENCE FISHING Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Aspect Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMANL? Pounds of fish taken for sustenance 175,00075,000250,000 No. of people utilizing (eating) these fish 5,300 8,2002,900 1985 PROJECTED DWAND w 0 Pounds of fishtaken cn for sustenance 226,000 94,000 320,000 No. of people utilizing (eating) these fish 6,890 3,770 10,660 2000 PROJECTED DEMAND Pounds of fish taken for sustenance 313,000 131,000 444,000 No. of people utilizing (eating) these fish 5,2209,540 14,760 Source : (36) ATTACHMENT D.IX.1: FOREST VALUE Delta Souris Assiniboine Red Lake Lake Marsh River River River Winnipeg ManitobaTotals 1975 EXPRESSED DEMAND Value of timber and/or wood products $93,000$3,931,200 $7,737,600 $1,322,880 $27,884,480 $2,813,200 $43,782,360 * Potential1,532 MYs employment73 425 7 216 155 2,408 w cn0 Source: (36) * MY - Man Years ATTACHMENT D.IX.2 A. Known Archaeological Sites on Upper Souris River B. Known Archaeological Sites Near Confluence of Souris andAssiniboine Rivers C. Known Archaeological Sites onSouris and Assiniboine Rivers, East toSpruce Woods ProvincialPark D. Known ArchaeologicalSites on Assiniboine River, East of Spruce Woods ProvincialPark 307 FIGURE D.LX.2 KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ON UPPER SOURIS RIVER.(A) FIGURE 0.IX.2 KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES NEAR CONFLUENCE OF SOURIS AND ASSlNlBOlNE RIVERS.@ R23W R22W 1321 w R20W R19W 309 FIGURE JI I tn FIGURE D.E. 2 KNOWNARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ON ASSlNlBOlNERIVER, EAST OF SPRUCE WOODS (D) PROVINCIALPARK. \ \ f n i h0 ff\ R13w R 12W RllW 311