A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine- La Salle River Diversion Project
by
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
Master of Natural Resources Management
Natural Resources hstitu te University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3T ZN2
Copyright by Lisa Lowman. Aupst 1001 National Library BibIiithèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nie WdlingaDn Ottawa ON K1A ON4 -ON KlAOIYQ canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothewe nationaie du Canada de reproduce, 10- distn'bute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in tbis thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thése. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni Ia thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. THE UNIVERSITY OF MANïïOBA
COPYRIGEI' PERMISSION
A POST-HOC ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSINIBOINE -LA SALLE RIWR DIVERSION PROJECT
LISA LOWMAN
A Thesis/Practicum submitted to the Faculîy of Graduate Stridii of The University of
Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requinment of the dcgne of
MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Permission has been granted to the Library of the University of Mriaitoba to lend or seII copies of this thesidpracticum, to the National Libray of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to lend or seli copies of the film, and to University Microfilms Inc. to pmblish an abtract of this thesis/pncticum.
This reproduction or copy of this thesis has been made availabk by ruthority of the copyright owner solely for the purposc of private study and resarcb, and mry oily be repdiiced rad copied as permitted by copyright laws or with erpmwritttn authohtion from the copyright owaer. The Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion was implemented in 1984 to relieve chronic problems of warer shortage and poor water quality. Flows were increased alont the ia Salk River. Elm River, and Mili Creek to provide Live streams and a dependable water supply for domestic. municipal- agriculniral. and irrigation needs- Since construction of the diversion project- feu- follow-up studies have been conducted in the area- The purpose of this thesis was to cary out a post-hoc assessrnent of the diversion project in order to validate impacts, identif' necessq miugation. and CO consider the implications for future water use in the area- The specific objectives were to: 1)- identify predicted impacts of the Assiniboine-Lri Sde River diversion project: 2). identify any documented impacts of the diversion project since construction. with reference to impact predicuons- in terms of water quality and quantity: 3)- conduct a detailed wmr quality and quanuty analysis of selected current impacts of the diversion project: 41, establish how current and any funire water demands will affect the existing impacts on the La Salle River considered above. and: 5). to recommend- based on concIusions of the impact smdy. any action needed to ensure that the provincial water quality objectives are maintained. and to meet future domestic- municipai- agncultural, imgation. and recreational wacer demands.
By usins four research methods including Literature review. review of databases and reports. statistical analysis. and surveys and interviews. the gened purpose and specific objectives of this research were addressed, The litenrure review revealed the need for active monitoring of diversion projects whether or noc they are subject to an environmental assessment- Further. it estabiished that monitoring is critical dunng al1 stages of project development including the post- operationai phase.
An environmental impact assessment conducted by Hildebrandt-Young Ltd. in 198 1 predicted that the diversion project would improve the overall water quality of the La Salle River system- However. results from the analysis have ciearly indicated that water quality problems stiI1 remain along the entire system. p~cuIar1yalong the iower reaches. The ovenll water quaiity index (CW'QI) for the La Salle River was nnked for most yem during the period 1988-20 as '-faif'. LUso based on the CWQL water quality conditions during the mid-70's were comparatively better than during the mid-90's. The majorky of survey respondents indicated impr~vementsin water quality since diversion construction.. However- respondents observed continuai water qudity problems dong the La Saile River, puticularly during high water lrvels. surnmer and winter montfis. As weil. the municipal water ueatmect plant opentor indicated poor water quality during the rnonths of Januq to ApRL All other major water use operations includins golf courses and sewage hgoons were. however satisfied with the water quality dong the La Salle and Elrn Rivers. Results from the survey analysis concluded that the majorïty of respondents dong the La Salle and Elrn Rivers had an adequate supply of river and well water to meet their water use needs for 1999, However. one water user dong the Eh River indicated a water shortase from the Elrn River during the rnonths of My and August in 1999, Another wacer user also indicated a shortage of weU water dunng low water table penods along the Elrn River- Drspitr this, survey results concluded that water is no longer hauled in for domestic consumpuon due to water shortages, as was needed pnor to the diversion construction, As well. survey respondents noted that recreational acuvities seem to have grown in popularity dong the La Salle River.
ic is evident from this study that increased tiiture water demands will only ma@@ curent water quality and potential quantity problems dong the La SalIe and EhRivers, Poor water quaiity has the pocential to impact al1 water uses of the La Salle River Watershed including habitat required by aquauc life These water qualicy trends are most Uely to continue in the future unless human activities change along the rivers ancilor more rigid water management programs and pracuces are put into place- For these reasons. it is recornmended that a watershed management plan be developed for the La Salle River Basin including mirigauon measures for idenùfied water quality and quantity problems. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by both the Water Resources Branch, Manitoba Conservation and Prairie FmRehabilitation Administration, Agriculture And Agri-Food Canada, Throughout the durauon of this thesis. C was fortunate rnough to have support and input from exuernely knowkdgcable mernbers of my thesis advisory comminee including: Dr- John SincIair (Faculty Advisor. University of Manitoba). hlr- Jim Smithson Konservation Engineer- Wrater Resources Bmnch)- Dr- lan Dickson (Private Consultant). Mr- Bob Eilers (Professor. University of hlanicobah and Dr. Rick Baydack (Professor- University of Manitoba). Each cornmittee member has given me invaluable insight and assistance in irnproving the document from the first draft to the final draft.
1 would dso Iike to acknowledge Martin Erikson €rom the Fishenes Branch. Manitoba Conservation who provided me with a wealth of information on watershed management pracuces in Manitoba. Also, I'd like to thank to Jeff Babb from the University of Winnipeg for his statistical advisory support- Special thanks to Dwight Williamson of the Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Conservation for his generous cime. patience- and expert advise during the water quality anaiysis. 1 musc also thank lim Smithson for providing a orerit deal of backgound information required for this study As well, many tiianks co Cory Johnson. who provided technical and mord support during the oral exam. C would also like to thank the survey respondents for taking the time and effort to complete their questionnaires. Their responses were crucial co the SUCC~SSof the study- Finaily. I would like to thank my tàmily and friends for their inspiration and support throughout this project. A very special thrinks to my mother and father. who empowered me with confidence and determination in reaching my goals throughout my education- As wrll. thank-you to my two furry fiends. Tabina and Tanner. who were great cuddle monsters during those long hours of wnting-
"Achievernents in I$e corne through our abifie ro work around and over the obstacles thar cross our patlr, These accomplishments can ulwqs be measured by out beliefin ourselves" - Marvin Ashton. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...... i
-*- Acknowled,=ment~ ...... 111 List of Tables ...... -.Lx
List of Fi,uures ...... -.y1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND...... ,, ...... 1 1-1.1 PREAMBLE...... L 1. 1 -2 FUTURE WATER CONSUMPTION...... -...... -3 1.2 PURPOSE...... --A 1.3 OBnCmS...... -...... -.4 1.4 METHODS.....,...... ,...~....,.,...... ,..,, ...... -.....A - 1.5 SCOPE & CONSTRAINTS~e.,-,**~~~~~*t~.-~~L~~~~~~~~~..~..ee*~e..~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... 6 1-6 0RGANIiEATION.-...... --..7
CHAPTER 2: WATER DniFPSIONS ...... 8 INTRODUCTION...... ,...... 8 IMPLICATIONS...... JO 2.2 1 WATER DIVERSIONS N THE PRAIRIES...... 11 ENVlRONiMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... ,...... ,...... 19 3.3-1 MONITORING ...... ~~.~~..~....~...... 21 2.3 -2 IMPACT MONITORING SCHEMES ...... 2 L 2.3.3 MONTORING OF SiMILAR PROECTS ...... --79 CHAPTER 2 (Con't) 2.1 SUMIM,4RY...... 23
CHAPTER 3: METHODS.-....r..t.e...m....i...~.....rt...... 25 3.1 LITERQTURE REVIEW...... 25 3.2 DATABASE & REPORT SEARCH...... 0o026 3.3 STATISTICAL AnimYSIS...... 26 3-3-1 PAIRED-TEST ...... 27
3 -3-2 TWO-S AMPLE .?L NALYS IS ...... AL...... 3 O 3 -3-3 SIMPLE LhiAR REGRESSION...... 3 3 3 -3-4 THE CANADIAN WATER QUIZLiïY INDEX ...... 35 3.1 SURVEYS gi INTERVIEWS...... mo..42 3.4.1 MAL.OUTSURVEY ...... 43 3.4.2 INTERVIEWS WITT3 MAJOR WATER USERS...... 43 3.5 RESEARCFI MEHODOLOGY SUMMARY...... 14
CHAPTER 4: BA SELINE CONDITIONS ...... o...... -46 4.1 OVERmW...... 46 1.1 TOPmRQPHY ...... t...... *.....*...... 37 1.3 STRATIGWPHY...... 47 1.1 HYDROLOGY...... o...... ,...... 48 3.5 WATER QU-ANTITY...... 54 4.5.1 WATER LICENCES ...... -34 4-52 DOMESTICCONSUMPTION...... 55 4.5.3 ïRRIGATIONCONSUMPTION...... 35- 4.6 WATER QUALITY...... - ...... ,...... 56 CHAPTER 4 (Con't) 4.7 AQUATIC LIFE...... 61 1.8 WILDLIFE...... 64 4.9 RECREATION & AESmTICS...... 66 4.10 SmIMARY...... 66
CHilPTER 5: IMPACT PREDICTIONS ...... 67 5.1 INITIAL PROJECTDESCRIPTION ...... 67 5-1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW PROCESS ...... 68 3.2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 69 5.3 IMPACT PREDICTIONS...... 72 5.3.1 ECOLOGiCALiMPACTPREDICTIONS ...... 73 5-32 HYDROLOGICAL IMPACT PREDICTIONS ...... 77 5.3.3 ECONOMIC MPACTPREDiCTIONS ...... 78 5.3.4 SOCiAL MPACT PREDICTIONS...... 80 5.3 DOCIJNIENTED IMPACTS ...... 81 . 3-41 PESTICIDES...... 82 3.5I SUMMARY...... 83I
CHAPTER 6: WATER QUALITYANALYSIS...... 87 6.1 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. OBJECTIVES.AND GUIDELINES ...... 88 6.1.1 NATIONAL WATER QUALlTY GUIDELINES ...... 89 6-12 PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES...... 89 6.2 DESCRIPTI.ON~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~92 6.3 WATER QUALITY DATA ...... -94 CHAPTER 6 (Con't) NUTRIENTS ...... -95 SPECIFIC CONDUCTiVITY ...... 100 TURBDITY & TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLlDS ...... 102 DISSOLVED OXYGEN ...... 1 05 CHLOROPENLL a...... 106 FECAL COLiFORM B ACTERLA- ...... 107 PH...... 109 HARDNESS...... 1 10 TRACE METm...... -111 PESTICIDES ...... 1 12 WATER QUALtTY INDEX...... -113
CHAPTER 7: WATER USAGE...... 125 SURVEy RESULTS. 1981...... 125 MAIL-BACK SURVEY. 2000 ...... 126 7.2.1 LA SALLE RlVER RESPONDENTS ...... 127 7.2.2 ELMRNERRESPONDENTS ...... 137 INTERVIEWS WTH MAJOR WATER USERS ...... 142 7.3. 1 GOLF COURSES ...... L42 7.3-2 MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY ...... 144 7 -3-3 SEWAGE LAGOON DISCHARGE ...... 149 HUMAN SETIZEMENT...... 151 7.1. L POPULAITON STATiSTICS...... 153 7.4.2 LlVESTOCKRUN-OFF...... 154
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 Identified impacts as a result of the South Saskatchewan-Qu-Appelle Diversion
Project...--.-.-.-- .-.. ------.------.,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,. ,,,,,.,. ,.. .--.-- ---.-- .-.--..--.-.-. 12 TABLE 2.2 Impacts of the Churhiii Diversion on the Receiving Systrrn. including the Notigi - Reservoir------.- - - - . --- - .- - .- .. . . . , ,, ,, , , , , , . , , , , . , , , , , . ,,,,.,,,,,-,------a- .----.- .. - -...-13 TABLE 3.3 Potential impacts of the proposed Deds Lake Ourlet on the Red River- Lake Winnipeg. and their nibutaries .,-,.,,,,,,.,.. ... ,,-,.,,,,,,, ,,.,. .,,-,,,---..--.. ---,,-.--., 16 TABLE 2.4 Potenual impacts of the Garrïson Diversion project on receiving water bodies including the Assiniboine River, Red, and Souris Rivers- and Lake Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipeg,,, ,, . ,.,---,------Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-...-Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... Winnipegc,,,,.,.,---,------.-... - -.------.--,- 19- TABLE 3.1 The Canadian Water Quality index,, ,, , , , , , , , . , , , , , . , - ,, , , , , , , , . , , , , . - .. + ------.., - ---33 T-ABLE 3.2 CWQI categories for ranking purposes, ,, ,,, ,, , ,, ,, ,, ,, ,. , , , . . , . , - - - --.--. ------.----. .. -39 TABLE 3.3 Objectives and water uses for various variables used in the CWQI-- .. . . - -- - -...-----A 1 TABLE 1.1 Water storage capacity of dams dong the La Salle River....,.-.---.-.------+. - - - - -... . -. ...,. 53 TABLE 4.2 Conductivity measured at three sites dong the La Salle River in July- 1980 ... .,.-37 TABLE 4.3 Conductivity testing in 1983 at three sites dong the La Salle River------.-.-.-,-..---.-- 58 TABLE 4.1 Turbidity measured in 1982 at three sites dong the La Salle River-. --..--. ..-.-.-..., 60 TABLE 4.5 Frsh species data collected on the La Salle River between 1966 and 200 1 .-. .- .-. .,--62 TABLE 5.1 h summary of the number of pumps. total pump rate- and pumping period for each of the three pumping stations.,-...... ,.- ,------. - ,. . ------.-72 TABLE 52 Summary of ecologïcal badine conditions and predicted and actud impacts dong the La Sdie River---. - - -.- - - -.-. - --..- -..-. ,. - -.------.- - -.. .- - - ,, , - .-. ------.-. . - .-76 TABLE 3.3 Summary of the most commonly used herbicides. pesticides, and fungicides in a 1981 fmsurvey study...... ,,.,,------.-,.,,,,,, S2 TABLE 5.4 Statisucai surnmary of several pesticides detected almg the La Sdle River between 1985 and 1994...... 85 TABLE 6.1 Definitions of water quality standards. objectives, and guidelines ------. - -.---. ...- 88 TABLE 6.2 Objective failure rates for selected nuulents at site WQ0068 -.---. .. --...... - ...... 97 TABLE 6.3 Objective failure rates for selected nutrients at site WQ069-73 ----..-----..-...-.-.l 10
TABLE 6.4 Objective failure rates for conductivity at site WQ068--- .. - - .- -- - - .. - - - .- ...-.--.. .-10 1 TABLE 6.5 Objective failure rates for conductivity at sites WQûû69-73.,. ..- -. .. - -... -. . . . -. .-. 102 TABLE 6.6 Objective failure rtes for nirbidity and total suspended soiids at site WQ0068 - .------.- .. . - -.- . - - .. - .-. . . . . , , ...... , , , . , . . . . . , ,- . . . . , , . , - - - .- - - - .- - .. . - .. . . -. 103 TABLE 6-7 Objective failure rates for didity and total suspended solids at sites WQ0069-
73*.-.*.-.----.-----.---.-- * ~-.--1...... ,.,,....,...,.,...,..,...,,...,,,*,.,- *.--*--*.,* ..,, 104 TABLE 6.8 Objective failure rates for dissolved oxygen at site WQ0068 -., , -. -- - - - .------.-..-- - - 105 TABLE 6.9 Objective failure rates for dissolved oxygen at site WQûû69-73. - - .- .- - .- ...... -... -- 106 TABLE 6.10 Objective failure rates for fecal coliforms at site WQ0068,. - - -.-. - - .- .. - - .- - - --... .. 108
Units cms = cubic meters per second cfs = cubic ket per second us= microgams per Litre tapproximately equal to pans per billion)
Bq/L = Becquerels per Iiue rnz@ = rniiiiL~per litre (approximately equai to parts per million) hTLV= Nephelometric Tubidity Units
TCC = Tme color units
SM= sodium adsorption ratio
Conversions
cubic ket x 0.0283 = cubic metres cubic meter x 35.3 1 = cubic feet acre L'set x 1 233 -481 = cubic metres
-odlons .u 0-003546090 = cubic metres
1 hectare = 2.2 acres
xii 1.1 BACKGROUND
1.1.1 PREAMBLE
There is increasing concern about the pwing demand for water in southem Manitoba. Water use has generally not been a concern to Manitobans, in fact water throughout Manitoba has always been viewed as being abundant in supply (Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board, 1995). Development and expansion of the a~gicultural indusûy, howeveq with particular reference to irrigation requirernents emphasize the changing needs and dernands for water.
Irrigation requirements in southern Manitoba have expanded in the order of 15% per year on average between 1991 and 1999 (Geisel, 1999). These anticipated increased withdrawals fkom the Assiniboine Basin could potentially be in direct confiict with the longterm municipal and industrial needs for water in southem Manitoba- Since the Assiniboine River Basin is quickly approaching maximum allocation of its water, the province will ultimately have to choose between limiting growth in the basin or developing new water sources (Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board. 1995).
The Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion project was completed in 1984 to increase and stabilize flows along the La Salle River, Elm River, and Miil Creek in South Central Manitoba. The project was constnicted to divert up to 50 cubic feet per second into these streams hmthe Assiniboine River using three low-lifi pumping stations (Figure 1.1)-
-- -
A Post-Hoc .4ssessnlenr of the Assiniboine-La Salk River Diversion Projeci
Chaprer 1: Introduction
The intention of the project was to relieve the chronic problems of water shorrage and poor water quality by maintainhg live strearns, provïding a dependable water supply for municipal. domestic. and agricultural requirernents, and by providing water for the expansion of on-farm irrigation in the area (Smithson, pers corn, 1995). Due to the increasing demand for water hmboth the Assiniboine River Basin and La Salle River Basin, licensed withdrawal amounts on the La Salle River, Elm River, and Mill Creek need to be reassessed. Since the implementation of the Assiniboine-La Salle RWer Diversion project, few studies have been conducted on water withdrawal in the area.
1-12 FUTURE WATER CONSUMPTION
Zt is unknown whether future consumptive uses in the La Salle River Basin can be accornmodated by increased augmentation fkom the Assini'boine River, or if alternatives are more feasible (e.g. in-stream storage, off-stream storage). Future allocations will, however, be based on legislative guidance.
Water allocations fiom the La Salle River are currently based on the Manitoba Water Rights Act (1 988). Increased and competing uses of water influence the extent to which the La Salle River cm satisfi fish. wildlife, and recreation requirements. Water r@ts under the Manitoba Water Ri-ghts Act (198S), are granted to those who obtain a license from the Crown which are granted on a ''first corne, first semed" basis (Smithson, pers corn, 1995). As well, it is important to note that under the Water Rights Act there is no specific requirement to preserve and protect Stream and river flows as part of a healthy ecosystem, although such consideration may be gïven under Manitoba's Sustainable Development Act.
A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr qf the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 3 Chapter 1: Inrroduction
1.2 PURPOSE
Since the implementation of the Assuit%oine-La Sdle River Diversion Project in 1981. feu. studies have been conducted in the area, The pwpose of this study was to carry out a post-hoc asscssment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project in order to validate impacts, ideilti& necessary mitigation and to consider the implications of future tvater use,
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The following objectives were sîudied to accomplish the purpose:
1). to identi@ the predicted impacts of the ~ssiniboine-LaSalle River Diversion Project;
2). to identi@ any documented impacts of the Diversion Project since construction, with reference to impact predictions, in terms of water qualiry and quanti@:
3)-to conduct a detailed water quality and quantity analysis of selected current impacts of the Diversion Project:
4). to establish how current and any fûture water demands will effect the existing conditions of the La Salle River considered above, and;
5). to recommend, based on conclusions of the impact study?any action needed to ensure that provincial water quality objectives are maintained and to meet future domestic, municipal. a,oriculturaI, irrigation. and recreational demands.
R Posr-Hoc Assessnrent of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 4 METHODS
The following is a summary of the research methods. A detailed description of these methods is discussed in Chapter 3.
The research methods consisted of four main components: 1). review of literature; 2). examine databases and reports; 3). statistical analysis of water quaiity and flow data; and 4). survey analysis and interviews-
The literature review was conducted to identifjr pre-project conditions and to determine what the initial expectations and predicted impacts of the project were. Databases and reports were examined to identifjr any documented impacts since construction of the diversion. As well, an in-depth statistical analysis was performed on water quality data along the La Salle River, identifjing any evident impacts on water quality after project irnplementation, Surveys and interviews were also conducted with local water users and water use experts to determine any evident impacts afier implementation of the diversion project.
A Post-Hoc Assessntent of rlre Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 5 1.5 SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS
Scope
The study area of the post-project assessrnent covered the La Salle and Elm Rivers. Due to a lack of literature and data available, Mill Creek was not assessed.
Limitations
1). There is Zimited historical baseline data for the La Salle River Basin. Thus, it was difficult to distinguish the natural (non-induced) changes that occurred &er the development of the project and the changes that have occurred as a direct result of the project (human-induced),
7). Historical flow and water quality data was non-existent for Elm River- Thus, any statistical analysis relating to water quality and/or fiow was not possible for this river.
3). The determination of the minimum "in-strearn flow requirements" to protect recreation and aquatic Iife for the La Salle River Basin was beyond the scope of this study.
4). An in-depth analysis of al1 impacts and effects caused as a direct and/or indirect result of the Assiniboine-La Salle River project was also beyond the scope of this study.
A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr o,fthe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr Chaprer 1: Introducn-on
5). Determining the total volume of water withdrawn fiom the La Salle and EIm Rivers was not possible since many water users do not possess a water rights license.
6). Livestock operations were not identified dong the La Salle and EhRivers since permits are ody required for operations greater than 400 animal units.
1.6 ORGANIZATION
This thesis is organized into eight chapters. Following the introduction, chapter two provides a review of related Iiterature on water diversions, discussing the importance of post-environmental impact assessrnent as weU as on-going project monitoring- Chapter three describes the rnethods used to conduct the research including the review of literature, databases and reports, statistical analysis, and surveys and interviews. Chapter four provides baseline information coUected to characterize pre-project conditions of the La Salle River Basin, Chapter five reviews impact predictions made for the Assiniboine- La Salle River Diversion Project of ecologïcal, hydrologicd, economical, and social importance. Chapter six focuses on water quality dong the La Salle River, comparing water quality before and after project irnplementation using statistical analysis procedures. Chapter seven examines respondent views on water quality and supply availability fiom the La Salle and EhRivers- Chapter eight concludes the thesis and fornulates recommendations based on the findings fiom the water quality analysis and responses fiom the survey and interviews. The appendices include water quality statistical summary tables, survey cover letters and sample questionnaire, and survey results.
- - --
-4 Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Chaprer 2: Fafer Diversions
CHAPTER 2: WATER DNEESIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Canada's geography is such that water can almost eveqwhere be dammed and diverted readily benveen drainage basins- There is a high density of interconnectai and almost- connzcted lakes. rivers, and streams which make up Canada's drainage network. Canadian water diversions exceed in volume those of any other nation in the world. This volume of water is considerably greater than in the next two leading countries, the United States and the Soviet Union, combined- The total flow involved in Canadian water diversions is 4400 cubic meters per second @ay and Quinn, 199 1).
Water diversions in Canada have not had to resort to long canals or pipelines, or to high pumping lifis, as has been the situation in many Amencan, European, and Australian projects. Canada has advantages in short cuts between proxirnate water bodies and in gravity flows using natural channels- As of 1991, there were at least fi@-four interbasin water diversions in Canada (five of which are located in Manitoba) based on the criteria used by Day and Quinn (1991) that a). diverted flow does not return to stream of origin, or parent stream, wïthin 25 kilometres fiom the point of withdrawal. and b). mean annual diverted flow- is not less than a rate of one cms-
Water diversions have been implemented in Canada for any of the followinç reasons:
1). to increase water supplies for growth sectors of a community or region (including domestic, municipal, agricultural, irrigation' and recreational);
-4 Posr-Hoc ,&sessmenr of rire Assiniboine-la Salk River DNersion Projecr 8 2). to defieci watcrcourses away from a protecred area with the intent to protect a community from flooding, to de-w ater a mine site, or to drain land for agriculture (the diversion may only extend a shon distance before flow returns to the same or parent Stream below the protected area);
3 j. to increase the carrying capacity of a \vatercourse so that the river rnight betrer flox ships or lops. sustain fish. or dispose of wastes: and,
4j. to consolidate sueam Rows from differenr sources into ons trunk route for more efficient hydroelecuic dcvelopment (Day and Quinn, 199 1).
,' \- I
2r rH . Figure lntemasrn VWaier ùwersions ln canada* %
Figure 1.1 Interbasin water diversions in Canada (ffoodway flows of short duration are excluded such as the Portage Diversion. Winnipeg Floodway. Seine Diversion) (Day and Quinn. 1991)-
A Posr-Hoc Assessmetlr of the Assiniboine-Ln Salle River Diversion Projecr 9 Chaprer Zr IT2 fer Diversions
2.2 IMPLICATIONS
The process of damming and diverting the flow of water fiom one river basin to another initiates a complex set of physical, biologicd, social, economic. and political changes. The ma-p tu de and site location of the project will determine the severity of these changes. As Bodaly et a1 (1984) notes,
"Under naturai conditions, the rate of evolution is in strong contrast to the nearly instant change of diverthg a river.-,the evolution of aquatic systems after river diversion and impoundrnenc is not towards the original state before development, but rather towards a new state, the form of which depends on the nature of the water flow and water level manipulations".
In the past, published literatwe on the environmental effects of existing Cimadian water diversion projects has been limited with the number of predictive impact assessrnent publications far exceeding the number addressing actual ecological consequences of completed projects (Neumeyer, 1986).
The main effects f?om Canadian diversion projects have been recorded in imgated acreage. energy generation. water bome commerce, and other production data (Day and Quinn. 1996). Unfominately, al1 relevant efCects are not always traceà back to these diversion projects. Many costs are bome by the environment and people other than those who benefit fiom the projects (Day and Quinn, 199 1).
-4 Posf-Hoc Assessnrenr ofthe Assiniboine-La Salle River-Diversion Project 10 As Dick (1987) notes, morphologie changes will result fiom diversion, but these can range fiom barely perceptible to dramatic for reasons that are not necessady obvious- For exarnple, changing the river flow either in the donor or receiving bain may result in long-term changes to sediment transport with altered habitats and river water quality. SrnaIl changes in nutrient levels of a river fiom a diversion may cause large changes in river algal production. As weil, diversion may transfer diseases or biota which could drarnatically impact their new environment-
To gain a better understanding of the biophysical, socid. economic. and political changes induced by interbasin diversion, the project environment cm be considered in five parts- These are: 1)- downstream fiom the diversion in the basin of ongin, 2). in the reservoirs(s) create for storing basin-of-origin flows, 3)- in the diversion channel which carries water, either for the first time or more than normally, 4). in the water body receiving the diverted flow, and 5). in the surrounding region and as far as repercussions can be traced (Day and Quinn, LW1).
2.2.1 WATER DlVERSIONS IN THE PRAIRIES
Documented case histories of similar projects can reveal the diverse possible impacts that cm occur as a result of water diversions in the water body receiving the diverted flow. Three examples of water diversions effecting prairie residents are: 1)- the South Saskatchewan - Qu'Appelle Diversion, 2). the Churchill Diversion, and 3). Garrison Diversion & Devils Lake OutIet. These diversions are wonhy of review since a considerable breadth of experience has resulted from the assessrnent and monitoring of these projects.
A Post-Hoc Assessnzent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project I i 2.2.1 (1) South Saskatchewan - Qu'Appelle Diversion
Water iç diverted fiorn the South Saskatchewan River to the Qu'Appelle River by a small pump which was built in L958. This diversion was designed to au--nt the water available fkom Buffdo Pound Lake to supply the municipal requirements of the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw. The primary purpose of the diversion was municipal water silpply with some consideration given to irrigation and recreation requirements (?Viens, 1987). The Qu'Appelle Operation Board was established in 1971 and developed operation procedures designed to provide maximum overall benefit for purposes including municipal, industrial, agicultural, and recreation uses, pollution abaternent, and flood control. Water is allocated predomuiantly for uses such as municipal, domestic, imgation, and industrial-
A study conducted in 1972 reported that the diversion had no si,onificant effects on imgation, navigation, river regime, water intakes, and recreation within the Saskachewan River system as a whoie (Kerr, 1972). However, impacts were reported on water quality, aquatic vegetation, and the economy as sumrnarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Identified impacts as a result of the South Saskachexvan-Qu'Appelle Diversion Project (Kerr. 1972).
/ Water Quality 1 Reduction of dissolved salts, total hardness, and sulphate 1 1 1 leveis in the Qu'Appelle Basin / Aquatic Vegetation 1 Weed gowth dhgthe summer months in cenain areas 1 1 dong the Qu'Appelle River. lirniùng potenriai diversion 1 rates up to 50-70% Economic Power loss in the donor syçtem (Saskachewan-Nelson Basin) due to the diversions to the Qu'Appelle River f?om Lake Diefenbaker-
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 12 1 (2) Churchill Diversion
Water ficm the Churchill River was diverted into the nearby Nelson River in 1976 to enhance flows through a series of large dams wnstructed dong the tower Nelson in northern Manitoba for the purpose of hydro-electtic power generation. The Churchill River flow was diverted through an excavated channel Grom the southern part of Souîhern Indian Lake through the Rat-Bumtwood River system and into the Nelson River catchment. The point of interbasin transfm was Southern Indian Lake with a capacity of approximately 760 crns (Neumeyer, 1986)-
As a result of the diversion, there was a major Ioss of river flow through lakes of the lower Churchill River, extensive shoreline erosion in Southem lndian Lake, and flooding and erosion dong the diversion route and lakes of the Nelson River catchment (Rosenberg et al, 1995).
Pnor to operation of the diversion in 1976, a pre-project study board was established benveen !97 1- 1975 ("Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board") to det ennine predicted impacts of the diversion project. Bodaly and Rosenberg ( I 990) compared aquatic impact predictions made by the study board with acmaI observed impacts.
Results from the cornparison study indicated that the accuracy of predictions for physical, chernical, and lower trophic level impacts was quite hi&. However, the impacts on fish populations were poorly predicted- For example, increases in merçury concentrations in fish coincident with impoundrnent were missed by the study board. Peak concentration levels in predatory fish occurred in the Notigi Reservoir, moderate levels in the lakes
-4 Posr-Hoc .4ssessnienr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 13 below the resewoir outlet, and lowest leveis in South Indian Lake (Neumeyer, 1986)- Bioaccumulation of naturally occurring mercury in fish species was due to mobilization fkom flooded soils (Neurneyer, 1986). Also, the disruption of the subpopulation or stock structure of comrnercially important fish was poorly predicted (Rosenberg et al, 1995). For exarnple, when a diversion channel, flow channel, or a dam was empiaced or when flows changed. stock structure was disrupted, causing unexpected changes in the yields and quality of the whitefish fishery in Southem Indian Lake (Rosenberg et al. 1995). Table 2.2 summarizes actual impacts of the Churchill Diversion on the receiving system docurnented by Rosenberg et ai, 1995.
A Posr-Hoc hsessmenr ofthe ,.ZSsiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 14 Chaprer 2: Würer Diversions
Table 2.2 impacts of the Churchill Diversion on the Recehing Systern. including the Notigi Reservoir (NR) and Iakes douasueam of the Notigi Reservoir (Wh'R) (Bodaiy and Rosenberg, 1995).
Documented Impacts of the ChurchiU Diversion on Documented Impacts Misseci During the Pre-Project the Receivhg System (NR & LDNR) Study
+ hcreased depth. flourl and supplies of nutrients 4 Increased mercury concenrntion IeveLs in fsh and particulate foods due to flooded shorelines populations in nooded area~ folIowed by increased productivky of bactena, phyt~pl~on,and invenebrates that supports increased productivïty of hi-&er trophic IeveIs(NR) - O increased flood levels (NR) Wherever a diversion chamel, £low chamel, or a dam was constructed or when flows were altered. whltefish popuiations were disrupted in Southern indian Lake (changes in yieids and quaw O Se~rereo'rygen depletions in the Summer and Winter (NR) O Diverted Churchill River was initidy the major source of suspended sediments (hmSouthem Indian Lake): now increased shorehe erosion is evident @IR) O AIgal production increased dramaticaiiy due to release of nunients fiom shorelines, but declined shortly afier CNR) + Benthic standing crops increased in ïmpounded lakes of the Notigi Reservoir; these standing crops remain hi@ due to nutrien: additions from the diverted flow of the Churchill River CNR) + Benthic standing crops initialiy increased, then stabilized to approx. preirnpact Ievels (LDNR!
possibly due to imrni_erarion of fish ffom
Debris and poor shoreline access caused
-- il Posr-Hoc .Ilssessnzenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River- Diversion Projecf 2.2.1 (3) Proposed Garrison Diversion & Devii's Lake Outlet
The Devils Lake watershed in hTorth Dakota has been isolated fkom the Red RivedHudson Bay drainage system for hundreds of years- However, the Iake has had continual rising water levels since 1993, causing approxirnately S450 million (US.) in damases to the region (Manitoba Conservation, 2000)- Since there is no naturai outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota bas proposed to construct an outiet f?om the l&e to drain water to the Sheyenne River (See Fi-me 2-2)- The river flows into the Red River which in m, empties into Lake Winnipeg-
This proposed outlet has potentiai impact to the Red River, Lake Winnipeg. and their nibutaries (including the La Salle River) which has raiseci recent controversy in both Canada and the United States. Manitobans are concemed that the proposed outlet could si+snifÏcantly affect the downsuearn aquatic ecosystem \rithin Manitoba (see Table 2.3). Since the extent of these impacts are not filly known and in accordance with the National Environmental Poiity Act WP-4), an environmental impact staternent must be cornpleted pnor to any construction of the proposed outlet.
Table 2.3 Potential impacts of the proposed Devils Lake Ourler on the Red River, Lake Wuuiipeg. and their tributaries (Manitoba Consenration,2000)-
AREA OF CONCERN
Water Qualiv Deterioration of the Red River water quality due to hi@ sulphate, total dissolved solids (sdt), phosphonis. arsenic, boron, and mercur). found in Devils Lalie vBiota Tram fer Transfer of fish diseases and other pathogens, Smped bas 1 (cornpetitorspecies that could rhreaten Manitoba's fish stocks)
. -
A Post-Hoc Asseïsment of the -4ssirriboine-La Sa Ile River Diversion Projecr 16 Devils Lake Water Diversions
Figure 2.2 Proposed Devils Lake Water Diversions (Manitoba Conservation. 1999). Associated with the planned Devils Lake outlet is the proposed Garrîson Diversion. authonzed by Congess in 1965. The State of Dakota recognizes that historical water levels have fluctuated in Devils Lake with both droucght and flood conditions. An inlet is proposed £rom the Missouri River behind Gamson Dam to stabilize Iow water levels in Devils Lake. to imgate arable land in North Dakota, to provide water for municipal and industrial use to fourteen comunities, and to enhance recreational opportunities and fish and garne pro-gams wïthin and adjacent to the canals and reservoirs resdting fkom its construction (Manitoba Conservation 2000, Feldman 199 1).
Manitobans are also concemed with the iïnk between the Garrison diversion and the stabilization of water levels in Devils Lake. An inlet to Devils Lake hmthe Missouri River combined with an outlet to the Sheyenne River would substantially increase the risk of biota transfer. This movement of water fiom the Missouri River, which drains into the Gulf of Mexico, to the Red River, which drains northward into the Hudson Bay poses nsk of irreversibly damagïng the aquatic resources and water supplies of Manitoba. For example. the zebra mussel has aiready invaded the Missouri River systern but is not present in the Hudson Bay system (Manitoba Conservation, 2000).
Overall criticisms of the Garrïson project within Canada inchde the negative impacts these return flows would have on the Canadian fisheries, possible transfer of Missouri River biota into Canadian water. and flood Ievels (see Table 2.4).
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Projecr 18 Table 2.1 Potenuai impacts of the Ciamison Diversion project on receiving water bodies hcluding the Assiniioine, Red, and Souris Rivers, and Lake Winnipeg (Feldman. 199 1 ),
PREDICTED IMPACTS OF THE GARRISON DIVERSION PROJECI.
4 Leaching of soil leading to de_g-dauonof water quality of aii receivîng water bodies in Manitoba 4 Increase of flood levels and fiequency of floodlng dong the Red River 6 Introduction of fore@ biota (fish, fish eggs, parasires, disease) mto Manitoba waters, 4 Introduction of foreip biota. dissoIved minerais, and salrs hmthe rem flow of imgated farms in North Dakota potentiaIly hardeManitoba's Fishenes
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The most common approach to environmentdIy suund decision-making regarding water diversion projects is through Environmental Assessments Water diversion projects can be subject to an environmental impact assessrnent (EIA), under The Environment Act, which may consider any ecologïcal, social, and economic impacts. An impact is defineci as "'the change in an environmental parameter. over a specified penod & within a defined area, resulting 5om a particular activity compared with a situation which would have occurred had the activity not been inltiated (Wathern, 1988) (See Fi-gure 2.3)-
A variety of definitions for EIA are found in the literature. however Rosenberg et al (1986) defines EIA simply as "the process of doing predictive studies on a proposed development. and aodyzing and evaluating the results of this development". Therefore, EIA's are composed of two parts: 1). a predictive phase, which is meant to predict the effects of expected impacts before development occurs. and 2).a monitoring and
- --
-4 Post-Hoc Asse:wnzent qf the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf Chapter 2: fiter Diversions
Figure 23 An environmental impact (Wathern, 1988).
assessrnent phase, which is meant to masure and interpret effects duruig construction and after the development has been completed (Rosenberg et al. 1986). The importance of the monitoring and evaluating phase in assessing the predictions made cannot be overestimated, unfortunately in practice it is rarely carried out.
Dunng the predictive phase, an initial baseline data collection programme is typically used to charactenze the pre-project state. An effort would then be made to predict the extent to which the identified variables would change as a result of the project. Subsequently, folloming start-up of the approved project, monitoring would be used to determine actuaI impact conditions. A simplistic view of the major EIA steps is shown in Figure 2.4. . Monitoring Baseline Impact Project studies a prediction programme
Figure 2.4 Simpiistic view of the major EIA steps (Wathern, 1988).
A Post-Hoc Assessnrent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 20 23.1 MONITORING
"The curent lack of such [adequate pre- and post consuuction] data is the sui& geatest obstade to advanclng the state of the art in environmental imuact preciïction" - Hama 1983.
Monitoring is a critical element to any impact assesment. Monitoring can be defined as "an activÏ~undertaken to provide specific infornation on the characteristics and functioning of environmental and social variables in space and time" (Wathem. 1988). This terni is increasingly being used to describe the process of cornparhg the impacts predicted in an impact assessrnent with those which actually occur afier implementation in order to asses whether the impact prediction process performs satisfactorily (Wathem, 1988)- Therefore, effects monitoring is considered to be a "repetitive measurernent of variables to detect changes caused by externat influences" (MacLaren and Whitney, 1985)-
2.3.2 IMPACT MONITORING SCHElMES
The purpose of impact monitoring is to detect if an impact has occurred and to estimate its magnitude (Wathem. 1988). An essential part of the process is to establish that the perceived change is a consequence of the project and not the function of some other cause. The changes might result, for example, ftom natural variations in the parameter monitored or may be the result of some other development in the vicinity and, thus, not related to the project under consideration (Wathern. 1988). This is not an easy task and great care and attention has to be paid to experïmental design in order to achieve this objective.
A Posr-Hoc .-lssessmenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 21 Chaprer 2: WarerDiversions
As discussed by McLean & Beckstead (1987), water projects should include the design of long term monitoring progrms to distinguish changes induced by the project fiom the naturdly occurring charnel changes that may occur. This couId be accomplished by using a "paired watershed" approach which involves monitoring both the project area as well as a nearby waterway not aEected by the project. Monitoring is an important component of EIA's as Beanlands and Duinker (1983) have stated, 'we must have some degree of ecoIogical investigation during the construction. operation, and abandonment phases of development projects if we are to improve our capabilities in impact prediction and assessment",
2.3.3 MONITORING OF SIMILAR PROJECTS
Projects which incorporate monitoring into their overall project development scheme can be used to illustrate the importance of monitoring during all stages of project development. An example of a project which has included monitoring into its overall project planning is the Churchill Diversion.
Churchill Diversion
-4s discussed earlier, the Churchill Diversion started operation in 1976. Monitoring sites were established in the Churchill-Nelson River project area and surveyed by the Water Quality Branch of Fishenes and Environment Canada (Fishenes and Environment Canada 1979). This data was used in the investigation to determine trends in the water quality effected by the Churchill Diversion. The report entitied "The Chlïrchiii Diversion: Warel-QzuZity Changes in the Lower Chzwcchill und Bw-ntwood Rivers"
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessntenr of the hsiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project --77 documents an investigation to determine the makglinide and causes of water qudity changes in the rivers impacted by the Churchill River Diversion. There has also been an extensive series of reports conducted by Fisheries and Oceans involving the monitoring of benthic invertebrates. Benthic stands were surveyed in 12 northern Manitoba lakes in 1973, pnor to diversion, and then every two years afier diversion until 1987 (Weins et al. 1994). If pre-and post-monitoring had not been established? changes in benthic stands would not have been detected-
This example illustrates the importance of monitoring before and afier project development. Unfortunately, very little monitoring occurred during and afier the development of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project. This re-emphasizes the need for a post-hoc impact assessment for the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project,
Diversion of surface water is cornmon practice in Canada as its geography favours water transfer. However, literature on environmental effects of existing water diversion projects in Canada has been limited with the number of predictive impact assessment publications far exceeding the number addressing actual ecologïcal consequences of completed projects.
Documented case histories of diversion projects in Manitoba & Saskachewan were used to identify the diverse possible impacts that can occur as a result of water diversions in
A Post-Hoc Rrsessnienr of 'tlze Assiniboine-La SaUe River Diversion Project 23 Chapter 2: Wàrer Divemiam
the Prairies. However, these projects, whether subject to an environmental assessrnent or not, lack sufficient monitoring programs as well as post-project environmental assessments,
Diversions result in long-tem changes of the natural order and are just one of the many impacts of humans on the environment. As indicated in the literature, monitoring of impacts related to water quantity and quality is critical to any project development- Diversions fÎom basin to basin are major investments and it is important that research provides the means to correctly evaluate the consequences of such actions (Dick. 1987).
A P osr-Hoc Assessnienr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 24 Chaprer 3: Methods
METHODS
The research methods consist of four main elements: 1). review of literanire. 2)- database and report search, 3). statisticai analysis, and 4)- surveys and interviews-
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
+ Pre-Project Conditions
Information was gathered to characterize conditions of the La Salle River Basin prior to diversion construction in 1983. Described features included topography, stratigraphy, hydrology, water quantity, water quality, aquatic Iife, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics.
Sources of collected information included the Water Resources Branch and Water Quality Management Section of Manitoba Conservation. Other reports were retrieved fiom provincial, federal, and University of Manitoba libraries.
+ Predicted Impacts
Literahire relating to predicted impacts of the La Salle Diversion Project prior to diversion implementation were reviewed- Various documents. including the report on "An Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Augmer~tingthe Flow of Warer ir~the La Salle
Basin " conducted in 198 1 by Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd. were used as part
A Pusr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 25 of the literature review. The purpose was to identify what the initiai expectations of the project were. The majority of literature and documents was obtained through the Water Resources Branch and Water Quality Management Section of Manitoba Conservation. Other reports were retrieved fiom the provincial and University of Manitoba Libraries.
3.2 DATABASE AND REPORT SEARCE
Reports and databases were examined to identi* any documented impacts since construction of the diversion. This follow-up was intended to determine if there was any evidence of impacts that may or may not have been initially predicted. Searches for this information included Manitoba Conservation, Prairie Fann Rehabilitation Administration, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and university libraries.
3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
A statistical analysis was carried out using both water qudity and flow data provided by the Water Quality Management Section and Water Sunreys Sections of Manitoba Conservation. The purpose of the analysis was to identi* any positive andior negative impacts on water quality resulting fiom the diversion project-
Methods of analyzing the data involved performing a paired-t test, two-sample analysis, and linear regression mode1 using Statgraphics Hus@. Versios 7.0 (DOS-based statistical sohvare program). As well, a water quality index (WQI) was calculated based on the
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project 26 CCME formulation using Microsofi EX=$ (spreadsheet format designeci b y C.E. Hughes. Water Quaiity Management Section of Manitoba Conservation). The results fiom these four analyses were usai to make inferences about the population from which the sample was drawn.
3.3.1 PAIREDOT TEST:
A paired-t test (alpha = 0-05) was used to detect si-~ficantconcentration differences between upstream and downstream river sites. Compa.rïsons were made bebveen six monitoring sites dong the river (WQ0068-0073) using data fiom 1974-77 and 1995-97 (note: data was not collected between mid-1977 through mtil mid-1995). A total of 13 variables were used in the test includuig total and soluble ammonia, chlorophyll a, fecal coliform bacteria, specific conductivity, total organic carbon, total dissolved oxygen, hardness. totd Kjeldahl nitrogen, dissolved nitrate-nitrite nitrogen. pH, total phosphonis, total suspended solids, and turbidity. These variables were selected since they represent key indicators of possible pollutants entering the river system-
it should be noted that some of the variabIes mention4 were not measured at ail sites throughout the penod of record- For example, total ammonîa \vas measured on1 y f?om 1971-77 and thus. was combined with soluble ammonia which was measured from 1995- 97. Also, fecal colifoms MPN (Most Probable Number) was measured only fiom 1974- 77 and was combined with fecal coliforms MF (micro-filtration method) which was rneasured £rom 1995-97. Chlorophyll -a was only measured fiom 1995-97, As well, dissslved nitrate-nitrite nitrogen and hardness were rneasured fiom 1974-77 only-
A Pas?-Hoc .4ssessntenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 27 This one-sample anaiysis procedure estimated and tested the mean and variance of two paired samples. Since the data is paired, variability is greatly reduced narrowing the changes benveen two sarnple points and allowing for a more sensitive test, The analysis assumed that the sample set was randorn and normally distriiuted.
The analysis provided three sets of calculations on the data including:
+ sarnple statistics (number of observations, average, variance, standard deviation, median). + confidence intervai for the mean (95%), and + hypothesis test (t-test, two tailed) for the population mean which follows a t
distribution with n-1 degrees of fieedom and a confidence interval of 95%, a = 0.05 if Ho is me (and assumes the data cornes fiom a normal distribution).
Mathematically, water quality data was paired between sites by subtracting one set of the paired observations firom the other. For example, variable X2 (mean ammonia concentration at site WQ0069) was subtracted from variable XI (mean ammonia concentration at site WQ0068) at one point in time. The next calculation would follow as variable X2 (mean ammonia concentration at site WQ0070) subtracted from variable X1 (mean arnrnonia concentration at site WQ0069), etc. Means were compared using the hypothesis approach stated below.
------
-4Posi-Hoc ,4ssessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 28 Statistical Hypothesis:
The nul1 hypothesis, Ho:(CL, = A), or the equivalent, (pd = O), and The alternative hypo thesis, &: (p, # O), given:
px = mean value ofvariable 1 at site x uy = mean value ofvariable 1 at site y
ud = mean value ofthe difference between px and py
The test statistic for testing this hypothesis which is based on the sample of difference concentrations is shown below (Mendenhall, 1977):
s,,x,, .. ., 'c, = concentration measurements at sampIe site "A" for time periods ,, ..-.. etc. y,, y-,: -.-, = concentration measurernents ar sample site "Bfor tirne periods ,. - .-... etc. d, = x,-y,,d, = x,-y=, ---,cfi- %-y, @aired observations)
t = test statistic with n-1 degrees of fieedom
L d = & 4 mean difference of measurements between the two sites during the specified time period -n
S,= /~(4-&*, standard deviation ofthe mean difference
n = number of paired observations7x,, yi
A Posr-Hoc Assesment of rhe -4s-siniboine-LaSalle River Diversion Projecf 29 The comesponding 95% confidence interval is as follows (Mendenhall, 1977) :
3.3.2 TWO-SAMPLE ANALYSES
A two-sample analysis (alpha = 0-05) was used to detect concentration differences before and after diversion impiementation at sarnple site WQ0068 and WQ0070, Data \vas used at site WQOO6S fkom 1973-77 and 1988-2000 (note: data was not collected between mid- 1977 through until mid-1988). Whereas, data was used at site WQ0070 fiom 1973-77 and 1995-97 (note: data was not collected between mid-1985 through until mid-1995).
At WQ0068, it should be noted that some of the variables mentioned were not measured throughout the penod of record. For example, total ammonia was measured fiom 1974- 9 1, and soluble ammonia was measured from 1992-97, Thus, these were both combined wïth dissdved ammonia which was measured fkom 1997-2000. As well, fecal çolifoms MPN was measured fiom 1974-77 only and was cornbined with fecal coliforms MF which was measured £iom 1988-2000. Chlorophyll -a was measured fkom 1995-97 ody. Whereas? dissolved nitrate-nitrite nitrogen was on1y measured fiom 1974-9 1 and 1997- 3000.
Again, at sampling site WQ0070, some of the variables mentioned were not measured throughout the perîod of record. For exarnple, totd ammonia was measured fiom 1974- 85, and was combined with soluble arnmonia which was measured fiom 1995-1997- As
- --
A Posr-Hoc Aisasment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River- Diversion Projecr 30 well, fezal coliforms MPN \vas measured only fiom 1973-83 and was combined with fecal coIiforrns MF which was measured fkom 1984-1997. Chlorophyll -a was only measured fiom 1995-97. Also, dissolved nitrate-nitnte nitrogen was on1 y measured fiom 1973-85 and hardness measured fiom 1973-77 ody-
This two-sample analysis procedure estimated and tested the means and variances of two independent samples- In this case? pairing could not occur as the data sets were kom two difEerent clumps (Le. two different periods in tirne, before and after diversion implementation). The analysis assumed that the samples were independent, the sample set was randorn, and normally disuibuted,
Four cdculations were carried out as fouows:
sample statistics (number of obsewations, average, variance, standard deviation, and median for each sample and for the pooled data), dif3erence between the two means, a confidence interval for the difference assuming equai variances, and a confidence interval for the difference that allows for unequal variances, ratio of the two sample variances and a confidence intervd for the ratio, and t-test for hypotheses that concern the difference between the two means; the t-test is based on the pooled estimate of the standard deviations [the results of the hypothesis test will indicate that the difference between the two means is not equal to (or less than or greater than) a specified value (diff.) at a specified alpha level].
Means were compared using the hypothesis approach stated as follows:
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessnzenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 3 1 Statistical Hypothesis:
The nul1 hypothesis, Ho: (k = A), or the equivalent, (k - pb= O), and The alternative hypothesis, Ha: (k # ub,,given:
. = mean value of varÏable 1 afier diversion construction at sarnple site A pb = mean value of variable 1 before diversion construction at sample site A
The test statistic for testing this hypothesis is shown below (Mendenhall, 1977):
where. t = test statistic with n-2 degrees of fieedom - = concentration sample mean at sample site A afier diversion construction X, = concentration sarnple mean at sample site A before diversion construction na = number of observations afier diversion constmction n, = number of obsenrations before diversion constmction S, = pooled standard deviation (weighted average of cornbined standard deviations. Sa and Sb)
- -
11, f Ilb-2 The corresponding 95% confidence intervai is as follows (Mendenhall, 1977) :
A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf 32 Chaprer 3: Merhoak
3.3.3 SIMPLE LINElAR REGRESSION
Historical data was used to assess gend long-terni trends in water quality and correlation with flow rates at sampling sites WQ0068 and WQ0070 usuig 13 variables (as noted in the pair-t test). Xn addition, five pesticides (Dicamba, Bromoxynil, 14-D. MCPA, and Trïfluralin) and two trace metals (arsenic and lead) at sampling site WQ0068 were also assessed.
At site WQ0068, data was used from 1973-77 and 1988-2000 (note: data was not collected between mid-1977 through until mid-1988) whereas at site WQ0070, data was used fiom 1973-77 and 1988-96 (note: data was not collected between mid-1977 through until mid-1988). As well, at both sampling sites, the data was divided into two sections: a) data collected before the diversion (19841, and b) data cotlected afier the diversion was in place to observe any additional trends in the data related to impacts of the diversion project.
Again, at both sampling sites WQ0068 and WQ0070, some of the variables mentioned were not measured throughout the period of record (refer to the two-sample anaIysis for a description of the variables that were combined).
A simple regression mode1 was used, relating the independent variable. x (water quality parameter) to the dependent variable, y (water flow) using the linear regression function stated below:
A Post-Hoc Assessnrenr of the Assiniboine-La Salk River Dhtersion Projecr where: y = value of the response (dependent) vaïable. a = y-Ïntercept of the regression he.
b = dope of the regression Iine,
x = value of the independent variable, and
e = random error term.
In some cases. where noieci, raw data was log transformed to stabilize variances, resuiting in data more closely fitting a nonnal population- Typically, water quality data sets are not normally dism'buted without transformation (which is Uue for both mal1 and large data sets).
Secondly, residuals fi-om the regression were caiculated using the formula below to eliminate the effect of flow on the dependent variable- The calcuIated residual was then correlated tvith fieusing the following fonnula:
) e=y-pl where: e = residual. random error in the prediction, y = dependent variable, and
= fitted value.
Tns regressions displayed a si-gnificance level with t-values following the Student's t distribution with n-2 degrees of fieedom- Also, the correlation coefficient of the regession ranged benveen 1 and -1 where values closer to 1 or -1 displayed strong association whereas values near O displayed weak association. The relationship \vas only ~i~gnificantif the probability level was alpha c0.05 (with a confidence interval of 95%).
- - -
-4 Post-Hoc Assessnrenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 34 The data was also screened for outliers since the coefficient is strongly influenced by outliers which can make the correlation much different than what the correlation might be if the outliers are removed (Notz and Busam, 1995).
3.3.4 TliE CANADIAN WATER QUALITY INDEX
The Canadian Water Quality hdex (CWQI) was developed by the CCME as a tool for both simplimg the reporting of water quality data and providing a broad ove~ewof environmental performance (Water Quality Guidelines Task Group, 2000). The CWQI reflects the number, duration, and magnitude of water quality objective exceedances (Hughes, 1 999). There are certain advantages and disadvantages with the CWQI as listed in Table 3-1
Table 3.1 Advantases and disadvantages of the CWQI (Water Quality Guidelines Task Group, 2000)-
Advantages of CWQI Disrdvantages of CWQI
represent measurernents of a variety of the Ioss of information on single variables variables in a single number combine various measurements in a vaïety of the sensitivity of the results to the formulation different measurement unïts ùi a single menïc of the index the Ioss of information on interactions between variables the lack of portability of the index to different ecosystem types
A Posr-Hoc ,4ssessmenr of the -4ssiniboine-LaSalle River Diversion Projecr 35 Manitoba has adopted the CWQI using the following foxmula:
where: F, = percentage of water quality objectives exceeded,
F, = percentage of measurements in whkh one or more ofthe objectives were exceeded and
FS= mauin;um (nomalized to 100) by which ans ofthe objectives were exceeded.
Factor 1: Scope
F, is called "scope" because it assesses the extent of water quality objective failure of variables over cime (see Table 3.3). For each variable, one or more failed samples is considered a failed variable within the specified theperiod.
1 F, = (number of fded variables) x 100 1 (total number of variables)
Factor 2: Frequency
This factor is called "fiequency" representing the percentage of individual samples that do not meet their corresponding objective.
Fz = (number of failed samples) x 1 O0 (total number of samples)
A Post-Hoc ilssessnrenr of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Projecr 36 Factor 3: Amplitude
FI is cdkd "amplitude" which represents the amount by which failed test values do not rneet their objectives. F, is calculateci in three steps below.
1). An excursion is first calculated as the number of times by which an individual concentration is greater than (or less than, when the objective is a minimum) the objective,
When the sample value must not exceed the objective:
Excursion = (failed sample value& - 1 (objectivej) or when the sample value must not fa11 below the objective:
- - p. Excursion = (objective,) - 1 (failed sample value,)
2)- The norrnalized surn of excursions (NSE) is then calculated. NSE is defined as the collective amount by which individual samples are out of cornpliance. This is calculated by summuig the exucursions of individual samples fiom their objectives and dividing by the total number of samples (both those meeting objectives and those not meeting objectives). The formula is as follows:
-4 Posr-Hoc -4ssessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Divemion Project 37 3). The NSE must then be nomalized by an asymptotic function that scaies the nse value to a ranse between O and 100.
F; (NSE Scaled) = NSE I (0.0 lnse -+ 0.0 1)
Calcuiation of the CWQI:
Ranking of CWQI Values
Once the CWQI value is determined, water quality cari be ranked in one of five categones listed below in Table 3.2,
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 38 Table 3.2 CWQI categories for ran.kîng purposes (Water Quality Guidelines Task Group. 2000).
Status of Water Quality Departure from Naturai or Ca tegoryi CWQI Range Conditions Desuable Levels
Excelient 95-100 Water quaiity is protected with a Conditions very close to natural or virnial absence of threat or pristine levels. ïhese index values impairment can only be obtained if al1 meauremen ts are within objectives vunially ail of the tirne.
Good 80-94 Water quality is protected with only a rninor degree of threat or impairment
Fair 60-79 Water quality is usually protected but occasionaiiy threatened or impaired,
tMarginal 45-59 Water quality is tiequently threatened or impaired-
Poor 0-44 Water quality is airnost aiways Usually threatened or impaired.
- - -
L- These catrgona are preliminây with modifications likely to occur in the near futur~(Wata QuIity Guidelines ?~kGmup. 2000).
The CWQI was used to descnbe the overall quality of the La Salle River by measuring a wide range of variables inciuding bacteria. plant nutnents, major ions, trace metals, orgaics. and agricuItura1 pesticides. A series of water quality indices were calculated on an annuaI basis at both site WQ0068 and al1 sites (WQ0068-73).
A Post-Hoc ..lsse.~smentof the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project + WQ0068 The CWQI was camed out for WQ0068 using data fiom 1988 through until 3000. A total of 25 variables were compared with both national water quality guidelines (CCME 1988 and subsequent updates) and Manitoba-specific water quality objectives (WilIiamson 1988) to calculate the CWQI (see Table 3.3). Prior to 1988, pesticide and trace rnetal data was generally lacking, thus the analysis could not be carrïed any earlier. As well, levels of iron, manganese, and alumllium w-ere reportedly hi& dunng the penod of 1988 through untiI2000- Since these trace metais are naturally occ~gin Southem Manitoba soils, hi& levels are not uncornmon in adjacent surface waters (Williamson. pers-corn). Thus, a CWQI was calculated with and without these three variables to determine their impact on the CWQI.
+ AU Sites (WQ0068-73) A second series of water qualiiy indices was carried out using data at al1 six sampling sites fkom 1974 to 1977 and 1995 to 1997. In this case, only 9 variables were seIected due to a lack of pesticide and trace metd data during both time periods at this site. The nine variables include arnmonia (total and soluble combined), fecal colifonn bacteria, specific conductivity, total dissolved oxygen, nitrate-nitrite nitrogen (soluble and dissolved combined), pH, total phosphorus, totd suspended solids, and turbidity. The objectives used for these variables were also taken from Table 3-3.
In both senes of water qudity index calculations, raw data for trace metds and pesticides were "swept", replacing iess than detection limit values "<" with a negative value 'Y Raw data for fecal coiiforms were also swept, in which the "<" symbol was dropped.
A Posr-Hoc ,-4ssessmenr of the hsiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 40 Table 33 Objectives and water uses for various variables used in the CWQI. (Hughes, 2000)-
VARIABLE UNITS 0BJECTWE2 WDRUSEs
Fecal Colifotm MF $Bactena/ l OûmL 200 Recreation Specific Conductivity lm Greenbouse Irrigation Suspended Solids, totai 25 (mid range) Aquatic Life Turbidîry' c or equal to 5 Drinking Water. Aesthetic Dissolved Oxygen 5 (mid range) Aquatic Life Cadmium, totali Calculation based on Aquatic Life Kardness (741 O)' Copper, total4 Calculation based on Aquaric Life Hardness (7410) ' Arsenic, total 0.025 Driakiog Water. Health Lead, tatar Caiculation based on Aquatic Life Harciness (7Q 10) ' Dissolved Alumïnum 0-1 for pH >6.5 Aquaac Life Nickel, tatar Calculation based on Aquatic Life Hardness (7Q 10) ' Zinc, total" Calculation based on Aquatic Life Hardness (7Q t O) ' 0.05 Dnnking Water, Aesthetic Iron, total Drükhg Water, Aesthetic Ammonia, total Calculation based pH and Aquatic Life ~emperature' Soluble or Dissolved Nitrate- 1O Drinkïng Water. Health Nimte
A P osr-Hoc Assesmient of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 41 Table 33(Con't) Objectives and water uses for various variables used in the CWQI (Hughes. 2000)-
VARIABLE
ph 65-9-0 Aquatic Life Phosphorus. tom1 0,050 Nuisance Plant Growth Dicamba u@L 0.006 where derectable Irrigation Bromoxpil UgL 0.33 Irrigation Sirnazine ua 0-5 irrigation 2A D ufl 4 Aquatic Life Lindane U-fi 0.08 Aquatic Life Amine Ufl 1.8 Aquôtic Life MCPA 2-6where detectabie Aquatic Life Trifluralin u!@ 0.2 Aquatic Life
1. Turbidity uas only uscd in thr calcuIation ofthe WQI for dl siies using nine v+cibles- 2- Both national mtcr quality guidelines (CCME 1988 and subsquent updates) and Manitoba-sprcific water quality objectives t WiIIiamson 1988 and 2000) wrre examined. seltxting the most rigourous avaihble lirnit 3- Set Manitoba Water Qualie Objectives (Wiilirunson 1988) for calculatioa formula 4. Calcuhtion based on dissolveci metais and may slightly over estimate the excursion value. 5. Water use selectd based on hifiest level of protection,
3.4 SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS
Surveys and interviews were conducted with major water users dong the La Salle and Elm Rivers (water right ticensees and non-licensees). Respondents included local land owners, municipal water supply and lagoon operators, and golf course operators to reveal any evident impacts afier ïmplernentation of the diversion project that may or may not have been initially predicted. The surveys also identified the current perception of local water users on various water quality and quantity issues-
-1Posr-Hoc Assessrnenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 42 A mail-out survey was conducted during the months of April and May 2000 targeîing water users with and without water right iicences dong the La Salle River, EhRiver, and Mill Creek- A total of 3 1 surveys were mailed to landonmers dong these three watenvays with most responses received by August 2000. A series of two follow-up letters were sent to people who had not initiaily responded. Shortly thereafier, those who did not respond by mail were contacted by phone to collect the swey information (see Appendix 2 for a sample of the cover letter, follow-up letter, and questionnaire).
Survey results were based on information received from 21 people. Information not received fiom the remaining 11 people were a result of any one of the following reasons:
+ some people were not wiiiing ro disclose information, + some people were too busy with fanning operations at the time of the survey. + in some cases, two Sunreys were mailed to the same person under two different names and addresses (Le. comgany and personal), and + some people on the mailing Iist had either moved, changed their mailing address, or terrninated their farrning operation,
3.1.3 INTERVIEWS WITH M4JOR WATER USERS
In addition. interviews were held with major licensed water users including authorised personnel from the Sanford Water Treatrnent Plant, municipal sewage lagoons (Domain,
-4 Post-Hoc Assasnt enr of the Assiniboine-La Salk River Diversion Project 43 La Salle, OakbIufE Sanford, Starbuck, Elie, and Oak\lilXe), and Golf Courses ("Kin~swood" and "Bridges"). Similar data was collected fiom the interviews as fiom the mail-out surveys descnied above-
3.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
By using four methodologies, namely Literature and document review. database and report search, statistical analysis, and surveys and interviews, data was collected for the overalI post-hoc assessment. The analysis and synthesis of this data, leading to a set of recommendations concerning necessary rnitigation measures, fûifil the purpose and five objectives of this research. The general approach and major steps of the research are summarized in Figure 3.1.
A Post-Hoc Assessrnent ofthe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 44 POST-HOC PROJECT ASSESSMENT
- - -- - LITERATURE REViEW O Collection of pre-project information Identification of predicted impacts
DATA BANK & REPORT SEARCH 4 Identification of any documented impacts since project implementation
STATISTICAL SURVEY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS Validation of predicted Validation of predicted impacts on impacts on water qualicy water quaIity and quantity
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Impact Management Strategy including mitigation measures (water quality & quantity) Watershed Mngt. Plan
Figure 3.1 The general approach and major steps of the research-
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of rAe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 45 PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS
BaseIine information was couected to characterize pre-project conditions of the La Salle River Basin. Describeci features include topographyT stratigraphy, hydrolo-g, water quantity, water quality, aquatic He, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics.
The La SaIIe River Watershed is part of the Red River Basin and is located south of the Assiniboine River and eventually empties into the Red River. Prior to the implementation of the diversion project in 1984, the La Salle River Watershed suffered fiom chronic probiems of poor water quality and water shortages (Griffin 1979 and 198 1, Hildebrandt-Young 198 1, Adams 1982, Williamson 1982). The basin depended on precipitation for its source water supply for domestic and agricultural purposes. Occasional low precipitation periods resuited in insufficient and stagnant water supplies despite the provision of surface storage reservoirs on the La Salle River (Swedlo and Ludwig, 1977). Water supplies for fami uses were often inadequate and water had to be hauled fkom Winnipeg (Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, no date). The growth of agriculturd imgation placed an increased demand on water to the extent that further water use development would not have been possible with the natural run-off in the La Salle watershed.
A Posr-Hoc Assasmen r oftire Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Projecf 46 Chapter 4: Pre-Projecr Conditions
The La Salle &ver Basin is relatively flat with minor ndges and waIes, sloping gentiy fkom West to east at appro'rimately two fêet per mile (Swedlo and Ludwig, 1977)- Major elevation differences occur only between the natural prairie and the watercourses. At the east end of the Basin, the Iand elevation is approximately 229 metres above sea level which rises to about 264 metres above sea level at the west end (Swedlo and Ludwig, 1977) (Water Resources Branch, 1980)- The drainage basin area has no natural marsh areas or suitable locations for large dams or reservoirs (Discussion Paper - Permanent Facilities to Augment Stream Flows in the La Salle River Basin, n-d.).
The La Salle River Basin is part of former Lake Agassiz. The overburden is composed predorninantly of sik and clay (with some bog and rock outcrops) which enclose sand and grave1 masses, Many of these masses are connected by granular seams to the natural streams- The overburden is 18 to 50 metres thick. Limestone bedrock lies below the overburden. At the easterly end, the bedrock is at approximately 198 metres above sea level and approximately 213 metres above sea level at the westerly end (Swedlo and Ludwig, 1977).
The La Salle River system meanders easterly through the Aimasippi sand soiIs and then the lacustrine soiis of the Red River Valley before discharging into the Red River at St. Norbert (Discussion Paper - Permanent Facilities to Augment Stream FIows in the La
- - -
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessrnent qf the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecc 47 Chapter 4: Pre-Projecr Conditions
Salle River Basin, ad.). The soiis in the upper reaches of and adjacent to the Elm River and La Salle River are among the most suitable soils for irrigation in Manitoba. These river deposit soils are idealiy suited for special crop production ùicluding vegetables. There are over 10,000 acres of class 1,2, and 3 im-gation soils wlthin about 1.6 km of the Elm and La Salle river channels and about 10,000 acres of similar soils withïn a lîke distance of Scott Coulee- (Discussion Paper, n-d.).
The soils in the area are generally of the black fine-textured type, which includes the units St. Norbert clay. Osborne clay, and Red River clay. The dominant soils in these units are Gleyed Rego Black and Rego Humic Gleysol. Alluvial soils such as Riverside Silty clay, and Oakville Silty clay loam to clay are aiso present, but to a much lesser extent- The soils within the area are suitable for growing a wide range of grains and specialty crops (Cowan and Themen-Richards, 1986) (Ehrlich, et al., no date).
4.4 HYDROLOGY
The La Salle River Watershed is approximately 2,147 square kilometres located within South-central Manitoba and covers, in part, the RM of MacDonaId, Portage la Prairie, Grey, Richot, and Cartier (See Fi-gure 4.1)- The watercourses within the basin provided drainage for approximately 1194 km2 of agricultural land. The Upper Sale Watershed is drained by five watercourses; Scott Coulee, Elm River, West Branch of the La Salle Drain, La Salle River, and Mill Creek, Mill Creek is the only water body that has an outlet into the Assiniboine River. The Elm River, Scott Coulee, and the West Branch of the La Salle Drain discharge into the La Salle River at the easterly end of the Upper Sale
-4 Post-Hoc .Assessrnent qf rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Proiecc 48
Chapter 4: Pre-Project Condirions
Watershed. in the Central Sale and Lower SaIe Watersheds. the La Salle River is the only major nanual watercourse which discharges into the Red River just south of Winnipeg,
Pnor to diversion construction, historical annual hydrological patterns of the La Salle River system consisted of spring and early-summer runoff, late-surnrner and fa11 recession, and a period of ice cover. There were periods of unusually wet or dry conditions that persisted regionalIy for several years at a time (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd., 198 1). The La Salle River, Elm River, and Mill Creek meandered with low gradients and were intermittent due to natural conditions. Artificial irnpowidment retained water during penods of low flow. Flooding took place with the snowmelt penod only (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd., 198 1)-
Natural drainage in the La Salle River Basin was poor and a hindrance to ab&cultural practice. To improve drainage, a system of channels and ditches evolved. The overall land slope is approximateIy 0.04% which limits discharge (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd., 198 1).
The La Salk River progresses fiom order number 1 at its headwaters to order number 5 at St. Norbert pnor to becoming a tributary to the Red River, The order number increases as the number of tributary surface streams and volume of water increases (Cowan and Therrien-Richards, 1986).
A Post-HocAssessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salk River Diversion Projecr 50 Chapter 4: Pre-Project Conditions
Three sources of water supply in the La Salle River Basin cornes fiom:
4 a subsurface limestone aquifer, pockets of pervious sedunents in the overburden or surface reservoirs and dugouts. and 4 sources outside the boundaries of the Basin.
Unfortunately, the water f?om the bedrock aquifer is saline and not suitable for domestic, agricultural, and municipal uses without costly treatment. During penods of low flou.. exchange of surface water and saline ground water occurs fiequently in some reaches of the La Salle River (Williamson, 1982). Temporary pumphg fkom the Assiniboine River occurred occasionally using portable pumps during drought periods (Srnithson, pers corn, 1995). Importing water fiom outside the basin was costly and was used only when water shortages occurred during extended periods of low precipitation. Thus, the primary source of water supply in the basin was water stored in surface reservoirs or in shallow pockets of pervious sediments located in the overburden. Water availability was therefore dependent on the arnount and frequency of precipitation that the Basin received annually.
As mentioned earlier, prior to any dam construction. Stream flows within the La Salle River Basin would cease in late summer or early fall. If there was no precipitation during this period, the normal sources of water supply were depleted and shortages resulted. To avoid the chronic problems of water shortages, P.F.R.A. constructed a series of water supply dams aiong the La Salle River. in the early 1940's the Sanford and St. Norbert dams were built. During the early 1950's the Hogue, Lewko, and Hampton dams were built. Shortly thereafier, in the early 1960's the La Salle, Elie (Figure 42), and Starbuck (Figure 4.3) water supply dams were built. The water storage capacity of each dam is
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessnlent of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Project 51 Chaprer 4: Pre-Project Condinom
Figure 4.2 Stoplog dam at Elie for water conservation and sto~k~ate~g(Water Resources Branch,
Figure 43 Starbuck dam (fi..ed crest rockfil1 weu) constructed for water conservation and stochwatering (Water Resources Branch 1996).
- -
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Proficr Chaprer 4.- Pre-Projecr Condirions
illustrated in Table 4.1 (Swedo and Ludwig, 1977). The total storage volume of the La Salle River reservoirs is approximately 2,458,366 m3. Prior to the diversion, the reservoirs were effective during years of near nonnal annual precipitation- However, dunng periods of inadequate precipitation, the water in the reservoirs and dugouts became stagnant and in severe cases, water shortages wouid occur.
Table 4.1 Water storage capacity of dams aIong the La Salle River (Water Resources Branch. MB Conservation. 1990)-
1 1 WATER DAM TYPE OF PURPOSE NEARBY YEAR STORACE LOCATION DAM COMMUNXTY BITILT CAPACITY (rn3 at FSL)
Sanford Dam Stoplog Stockwaterhg and Sanford 345,375 water supply for the Sanford regional lg4I / I water supply system St. Norbert Dam ( Stoplog StocLxmering and SL Norbert f 1941 148.018 i 1 Recreation Hague Dam Fived crest Water conservation La Salle 1953 222.027 rocidül weü and stockwatering Lewko Dam Fived crest Water conservation Sanford 1955 1 296.036 rockfidl weù and stockwateriner -- - l Hampson Dam Fiued crest ' Water conservation Sanford 1 1955 / 431,719 rockfill weir and stockwatering La Salle Dam Fiued crest Water conservation La Salk 468 -723 rockfil1 weir , and stocicwatering I Srarbuck Dam Starbuck 1961 1 168.713 l Elie Dam 1 Stoplog 1 Water conservation Elir 1967 / 77,709 I 1 and stocicwatering 1 TOTAL, 1 1 2.458330
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of rite Aîsiniboine-L a Salle River Diversion Project 53 Chaprer 4: Pre-Projkct Condirions
4.5 WATER QUANTITY
Prior to diversion construction the La Salle River served a diversity of \Irater uses including both consumptive (domestic, irrigation, and agriculturai) and non-consumptive activities (recreation and support for aquatic life and wildlife). Al1 consumptive uses except for domestic purposes require a water rights licence under provincial legislation.
4.5.1 Water Licenses
The Water Resources Branch of Manitoba Conservation undertakes the responsibility for allocating consumpîive water use and diversion of water resources within the province. In order to use water at a rate greater than 25,000 L/day for agricultural, municipal9 industrial, irrigation, or other purposes, an individual or organization must obtain a Water Rights License. However, a water rights license is not required for domestic consumption at a rate less than 25,000 L/day.
Licences are issued to the water user who must have legal access to al1 lands required for the project. A licence for water use may be issued for up to 20 years (Water Use and Allocation Task Force, 2000).
------. -
A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of rire Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project 54 4-52 Domestic Consumption
Domestic corisumption of nver water was minimal due to water quality problems. Some individuals had installed equipment to render nver water suitable for human consumption but encountered problems ~4ththe equipment (Hildebrandt-Young, 198 1). The shortage of potable tkesh water was a major concern for residents in the area which increased the demand for increased water flows in the La Salle River Basin. Livestock watering was minimal as the majority of residents living dong the river did not have any livestock.
4-5-3 Irrigation Consumption
Historically, imgation water was used prïmarily for field crops. At the tirne of the Hildebrandt-Young study, approximately- 2640 hectares were imgated in the La Salle River Basin with a growing demand of water to imgate 5060 additional hectares. Also indicated in the 1981 study was the increase in demand for water, particularly in the vegetable and small hit industries (the majorïty of interest was in the upper reaches of the La Salle River Basin close to Portage).
Men asked in the 198 1 Hildebrandt-Young survey why imgators had not increased their irrigation in the past, the major reason was a lack of sufficient water when they needed it. Also, irrigation renirn flows were raised by the public as an environmental water quality concem in the 198 L Hildebrandt-Young study. Increased irrigation was anticipated by the public to cause water shortage and increased pollution of the water downstream due to chernical leaching, assuming that there was no increase in the amount of water available in the La Salle River Basin.
A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 55 Chaprer 4: Pre-Project Condirions
4.6 WATER QUALITY
Prior to project development, there had been several reports published indicatîng water quality probierns along the La Salle River system. Interestingly, the La Salle River was historically named the Sale River meaning "diay water" (Cenerini, 200 1). Parameters of particular concem dong the river included high conductivity levels (salinity), low dissolved oxygen, odour, algae, pesticide detection, and high levels of total suspended solids and turbidity-
Conductivity
In the Iate 1970's, high conductivity levels were reported downstrearn fkom Sdord where water quaiity was deteriorated by highly mineraiized groundwater invasion. Approxlmately one to two months fier river flow would cease, the water quality below Sanford would become unmitable for human consurnption and questionable for livestock watering (Griffin, 1979). Several studies were camed out in the eady 80's to further investigate conductivity levels along the La Salle River.
On July 15, 1980, a series of electric conductivity tests were perfomed on the La Salle River by Manitoba Department of Agriculture. The study was initiated due to previous concem of saline infiltration along the La Salle River between Sdord and La Barriere Park. Unacceptable water quality in this particular reach of the river affecteci domestic, agricultural, imgation, and municipal users in past years, especially during low flow penods (Williamson, 1980). The study revealed three areas of relatively high conductivity (see Table 4.2).
-4 Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 56 Chaprer 4: Pre-Project Conditions
Table 4.2 Conductivity rneasured at three sites dong the La Salle River in July, 1980 (Wliamson, 1980)-
-<- - New Iiwco Dm Neu Hogue Dam Near La Salle Dam I - -
I Five kxn downstrearn of Two km. upstream Thne km. below the La Location Sanford and continues hmthe Hope dam Saiie dam and continues to approx- three km of and continues approx, approx. three lm the Lewco dam tea )on downstream downstream t Conductivity Range (umhoslcm)
I The area of highest Comments conduc tivity (6500 umhoslcm) was located immediately below the 1 Hogue dam, f
A second study on conductivity was initiated by Water Standards and Studies, Department of Consumer and Corporate AfXairs and Environment on October 2, 1980. The study indicated similar results as conducted by Manitoba Department of Agriculture. Although, conductivity values were generally higher than in July, 1980. Also, the area near the Hogue Dam elctended approx. four km fürther downstream than observed in July, 1980. The differences were thought to result fiom a continued infiltration of saline groundwater during the La Salle River low flushing periods (Williamson, 1980)-
During the study, al1 areas of high saline infiltration were accompanied by the presence of gas bubbles. A reduction in pressure coincided with groundwater entering the riverbeci resulting in the release of dissolved gases. The points of gaseous discharge were located
A Post-Hoc Assessnlent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 57 Chapter 4: Pre-Project Condiriors
within al1 areas of relatively high conductivities. They were rnost prominent during the formation of ice and were recogrüzed by small open areas (Williamson, 1980).
As part of the study, approximately 3.7 x 106m3of water was diverted fkom the Assiniboine River fiom September 29, 1980 to November 15, 1980 (at various points along the La Salle River). Results indicated that augmentation of flows lowered the relatively hi& conductivities in ail three areas between Sdord and La Barriere Park The relatively high conductivity water was initially moved downstream, then became diluted as mixing occuned (Williamson, 1980).
A third study was conducted in 1982 testing conductivity and other selected water quality parameters along the La Salle River at Starbuck, Sadord, and La SaUe to determine if, under the existing conditions, the rîver was a suitable source for municipal supply to the communities- Surface waters tested at the town of La Salle indicated a tendency to be saline (See Table 4.3). (Adams, 1982)-
Table 4.3 Conductivity resting in 1982 at three sites dong the La Salle River (Adams, 1982).
WQ Parameter La SaMe Sanford Statbuck Conductivity 700-6500 mskm 280-420mskm 350360 mskm Comments Tendancy to be saline'
1. At the hightr conductivity values. hrewill be an increasr of hardnas. chlonde. and sulphate ions.
A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 58 + Dissolved Oxygen, Algal Growth, and Odour
Pnor to project irnplernentatio- water quality up-stream fiom Sdord had reportedly hi& levels of organics (mostly algae and macrophytes) lowering the dissolved oxygen levels weating foul smelling stagnant water (Griflin, 2979)- Also reported in 1981 was the lack of dissolved oxygen duting winter months in the remnants of ice-covered water at the principal dams. Decreasing oxygen levels during these periods was seen as a concern for fish sumival (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd., 198 1)-
+ Pesticides
In the early go's, the movement of herbicides and pesticides fiom the site of application hto surface waters became a major concem to residents dong the La Salle River using these waters for dornestic and livestock purposes (Cowan and Themen-Richards, 1986).
This rise of concem initiated a series of studies ?O investigate pesticide contamination of the La Salk River.
At approximately the same time as construction of the diversion project, a preliminary investigation was conducted by Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Conservation to determine the presence of pesticides in the La Salle River. Water quality samples were collected fiom the La Salle River during 1983/1984 at monthly intervals in the vicinity of Elie to study the behavior of selected pesticides within the aqueous environment. As well, a survey of seven landowners in the Elie area was conducted to determine a full range of pesticide types and use patterns within the La Salle River Basin.
-4 Posr-Hoc .4ssessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 59 These preliminary studies indicated that pesticides were detectable in the La Salle River. Herbicides reported included hiallate, trifluralin, dicamba, MCPA. diclofop-methyl. and 2,4-D as well as the insecticide azhphos-methyl (Williamso~1984). The mechanism of transport was not part of the investigation. but appeared related to snow-melt and rainfall nui-off events,
4 Dissolved Solids
As indicated in the Hildebrandt-Young Report, the baseline conditions (prior to project impiementation) for water quaiïty of the La Salle River was not satisfactory for Iivestock and domestic connimption due in part to high dissolved solid levels. During winter months and times of zero flow the condition was more severe.
4 Turbidity
Turbidity was also reported as "too high" at al1 three sites in the 1982 study. as indicated in Table 4.4. (Adams, 1982)-
Table 4.4 Turbidity measured in 1982 at three sites dong the La Salle River (Adams, 1982).
WQ Parameter La Salie Saniord Starbuck Turbidity ' Too high Too high Too hi_&
1. Acturil vaiues were not reported by Adams, 1982
A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle Riw-Diversion Projecr 60 4.7 AQUATIC LIFE
+ Fish Species
Historically, there had been good fishing in the La Salle River for pike, walleye, and catfïsh. Just pnor to project development there was noticeably Little sport fishing in the La Salle River except at its confluence with the Red River (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd.. 198 1). By the early 60's. dams were buiIt with fishways at La Salle (19407s), Sanford(l950's), and St~uck(l96O's)although these dams probably impeded upstream movement of fish except in high water- As indicated by the Hildebrandt-Young report, the dam at La Barriere Park prevented fish moving merup the La SaUe River fkom the Red River. It was also reported that dams and low oxygen levels in the winter time eliminated garne fish -
Table 4.6 provides a Iist of fish species identified primarily in the lower reaches of the La Salle River between 1966 and 200 1. In general, the speçies composition of the La Salle River is similar to that of the Red River since the majority of fish migrate fiom the Red River into the La Salle River upstream to the dam at La Barriere Park. Interestingly, the La Salle River and Red River near the mouth of the LaSalle are the only nvers in Manitoba where White Crappies has been reported. Both White and BIack Crappies are introduced in Manitoba. White Crappies were probably introduced accidentally into the Red River Watershed in plantings of Black Crappies, since at early life stages, the two species look very sirnilar (Stewart, pers.com 200 1).
A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-Ln SaZle River Diversion Projecr 6 1 Chpfer 4: Pre-Projecr Condirions
Table 4.6 Fish species data coiiected on the La Salie River between L966 and 200 1 (KW. Stewart. 200 1)-
COMMOhTNAM.. LOCATION
1 Hiodontidae (Mooneye Hiodontidae Aloso ides Goldeye 1 Lower Reaches close and Goldeye Family) to the mouth of the
to the mouth of the Red River Spifoptera Spotfin Sher Lower Reaches Family) Midwater-benthic, invertibrate feeder Cornnion Carp Bentbic, Enterhg fiom the Red invenebrate, detritus River up to the La and plant feeder Bamere Dam during , high river Ievels 1 during the sprhg Storeriana Silver Chub Midwater- Lower Rsac hes surface invertebrate 1 feeder River Shinner Lower Reaches invenebrate feeder I Pimephales Fathead Minaour 1 Throughout the river Benthic, invertebrate 1 r and plant feeder Catostomidae (Sucker Quillback Benthic, vexy 1 Lower Reaches close Farnily ) small inveaebrate 1 to the mouth of the feeder Red River White sucker Benthic, 1 Lower Reaches- invertebnte, dem-nis entering fkom the Red and plant feeder River to spawn up to La Baniere Dam Bi-gnouth Buffalo Entering fkom the Red Midwater. pIankonic River up to the La invertebrate feeder Baniere Dam during high river levels during the spring Silver Redhorse Lower Reaches close Benthic, hvenebrate IO the mouth of the feeder 1 Red River Marcroiepido Shorthead Redhorse ( Lower Reaches close nint Benthic, invenebrate to the mouth of the feeder Red River
A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf 62 Chaprer 4: Pre-Projecr Condirions
Table 4.6 (Con't)
! 1 / Ictaluridae Worth Amieurus Melus Black Bullhead Lower Reac hes and American Freshwater Midwater-benthic, jus above the La Catfîh Family) invertebrate and smdI Barrïere Dam 1 fish feeder @ooh& 1 Nebulosus 1 Broum Buhead as Lower Reaches and 1 just above the La 1 1 Barn-ere Dam I
/ aquatic plant beds, 1 Probably fiom the Red f 1 invertebrate feeder River 1 Esocidae (Pike Esox Lucius Northem Pike Entering £kom the Red Farniiy) Midwater - surface, River up to the La fish predator Barriere Dam Urnbridae Unzbra Limi Centrai Mudminnow in Lower Reaches and (Mudminnow Family) aquatic plant beds, just above the La 1 invenebrate and srnall 1 Barriere Dam ( fish feeder (pooling) Gadidae (Codf~h Lofa Burbot Benrhic, usually Lower Reaches, nonc 9'in rock, invertebrate reported afier 1984 and fish predator however may stiil be I I present Gasteros teidae Culaea inconsrans 1 Brook Stickleback / Throughout the river 1 (Stickieback Family) Midwater-benthic. in aquatic pIant beds. I l 1f I 1 invertebrate feeder I Centrarchidae Am blop/ires wpesnis / Rock bass Benthic. Entering f?om the Red 1 (Sunfish Family) 1 small fish and River up to the La l 1 invertebrate predator Bamïere Dam innularis White Crappie' Entering f?om the Red Lntroduced I Midwater-benthic. 1 River Ve* rare and usualiy around rocks, only hown fiom l submergcd wood or tvlthin a few hundred otber cover, srnail fish meters fiom the mouth predaror of the LaSalle ~Ïgromncctlat Black Crappie as above Entering fiom the Red I 1 River UP to the La [ntroduced 1 1 Barriere Dam and 1
-
A Posi-Hoc Assessrnent ofthe Assiniboine-La Salk River Diversion Project Table 4.6 (Con't)
COMMON NAME LOCATION
1 Percidae (Perch Edreosronta nigmm Johnny Darter Benthic, Entering fiom the Red Family) bvertebrate predator River up to the La Barriere Dam 1 Percina shumardi River Darter as above Entering corn rhe Red , 1 River up to the La I Baniere Dam canadense Sauger Benthic. &h Lower Reaches, predator entering fiom the Red River to spawn up to La Barriere Dam wVItreunr Waiieye as above Lower Reaches. entering fkom the Red River to spawn gnrnniens Freshwater DnidSilver Lower reaches, enters Family) Bass Benthic, hrge korn the Red River invertebrate and flsh mainly during high feeder (crayfkh, water mussels. for example)
I . Throughout Manitoba, this species has oniy been reported in and near the mouth of the La Salk River.
4.8 WILDLIFE
Waterfowl
Pnor to the diversion, the entire La Salle River systern provided feeding and nesting places for ducks (Pintail, Teal, Maliard, Wood Ducks, and other species), but during low water supply these places were greatly reduced in number. Ducks staged dong the river in the fa11 and would fly out to grain fields. Riverbanks were described as being lush with ungazed gras, shmbs, and trees which were beneficial to waterfowl and other
A Posr-Hoc Assessnrenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 61 Chaprer 4: Pre-Projecr Conditions
uildlife- In 198 1, production of duck was about one brood per km (Jones, 198 1).
+ Deer
The Hildebrandt-Young study described deer popdations as adapting to the riverbanks as travel comdors in an otherwise coverless and hi& cultivated area- There was a limited amount of local hunting dong the river- Also, there had been no cornplaints of snowmobilers disturbing deer (Houghton, 198 1).
+ Other Wildlife
Pnor to diversion implementation, the La Salle River system was described as providing a good habitat for a variety of wildlife. Great blue herons waded the shallow areas (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates, 1981). There were a few trappers in the area that trapped beaver, mus krat, mink? fox, and coyote (Houghton, 198 1). Occasionally, there were complaints that arose dealing with damage caused by beavers to fannyard trees and by local floodîng of fields, Muskrat and beaver adapted to a minimum water supply by digging bank burrows rather than constructing houses. There were no noticeable sensitive areas dong the river system (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd-).
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent qf rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 65 Chapter 4: Pre-Projecr Condiriorts
4.9 RECREATION AND AESTHETICS
Canoeing, snowmobiling, ice skating'. tobogganing, cross-country skiing were the main recreationd activities reported dong the La Salle River prior to project development. As weIl, the river supported a very limited sport fishery-
La Barriere Park borders the La Salle River and is operateci by the Parks and Recreation Division of the City of Winnipeg. There was considerable canoe activity dong the La Salle River close to La Barrïere Park (Hildebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd-, L 98 1). As well, the Trappist Monastery site borders the La Salle River and is approxïmately 8 acres
This chapter gives a bnef overview of the baseline conditions docurnented within the La Salle River Basin pnor to diversion implementation in 1984. The majonty of site-specific information was collected f?om both the Water Resources Branch and Water Quality Management Section of Manitoba Conservation.
Historically, the La Salle River system suffered fiom both water shortages and quality problems. Despite these issues, water demand increased along the system. wwranting flou. augmentation in 1984. However, pnor to construction of the diversion project, impacts on water quality and quanti- were predicted which are discussed in the followin,o chapter,
.il Post-Hoc ,-îssessntenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 66 Chaprer 5: Inrpacr Predicriom
CHRPTER 5: IMPACT PREDICTIOAYS
INTRODUCTION
The importance of impact prediction in any project is to identiQ what the initial expectations of the project are and to anticipate the eEects of various impacts before deveIopment occurs. This chapter discusses the initial expectations of the Assiniboine-La SaIle River Diversion Project. description of the three pumping stations, and impact predictions of ecological, hydr~logical~economical, and social importance. As well, there was no evidence of impacts reported as a direct result of the diversion project, however a review of documented water quality problems since construction are discussed.
5.1 INITIAL PROJECT EXPECTATIONS
In May of 1980, the governments of Canada and Manitoba signed an Intenm Subsidiary Agreement on Water Deveiopment and Drought-proofing. The purpose of the agreement was to develop a long-term plan for securing water supplies in the rural areas of South Central Manitoba to meet agicultural, municipal. and domestic water demands (Manitoba Department of Natural Resources. n.d,).
In response to the concerns, and under the drought-proofkg program, the Prairie Fann Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) uivestigated the situation and concluded that diverting water 6om the Assiniboine River to the La Safie River, Elm River, and Mill Creek was a feasible solution to the problem. The total cost of the project was $866,400 which was shared by both the Provincial and Federal govemments.
A Post-Hoc Rssessnzent of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Projecr 67 Chapter 5: Inzpact Predicriuns
5.1.1 EhlilR0NMENTA.L ASSESSMENT REVEW PROCESS
Pnor to diversion constmction, the project was subject to a review process by the Manitoba Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) established within the Depamnent of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Environment. The process involved the proponent (Water Resources Branch, MB Conservation) to submit a descrÏption of the project, as well as an environmental impact statement to the review agency upon completion of an environmentai assessment. A consultant group, namely Hildebrandt- Yomg and Associates Ltd,, was hüed by the proponent to cary out the environmental impact assessment. A memo sent on September 7, 1982 to the Environmental Review Agency by the director of the Water Resources Branch stated:
"Enclosed please hda project description of the Assh%oine-La Salle River Diversion Project, schedded for consauction during 1983 under the CanadaiManitoba Lnterim Subsidiary Agreement on Water Development for Regional Economic Expansion and Drought Proofing, A summary of an environmental impact assessment report, prepared by Hiidebrandt-Young and Associates Ltd., September. 198 1, and a location plan of the project is also enclosed- Since the beneficid environmental effects are anticipated to be considerable while the detrimentai effecrs are expected to be insip-fiant, we suggest that tlzk project be erempted fiom the requiremenr for an environnrenral assessrnenr by the Manitoba Environmentai Assessment and Review Agency" (Water Resources Branch. 1982).
Since the policy of the agency (EARP) was to ensure that fonnal environmental assessments be carried out for proposed provincial projects that may sign~fzcantZyalter or eflect rhe environment (EARP, 1976), the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project was deemed "insignificant" and therefore not subjected to a forma1 envkonmental assessment by the agency. Instead, the project was recorded with EARP, and was made available to the public who had 14 days to submit any objechons to the project. The project was then reviewed by EARP with the propnent to determine that al1 environmentai concems were satisfied before proceeding with the project-
--
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Because the diversion project was not subjected to a formal environmental assessment. important steps in the environmental assessment process were missed including:
review of the assessment by the Minister, notice of matters of importance lncluding any environmental concems to each municipality in which the undertaking was caxrïed out and any other people who were consiciered necessary or advisable: the opportunity for any persons to have inspected the environmentai assessrnent of the undertaking and the review pmcess thereafter, the opportunity of a public hearing (initiateci by the Mùiister) which would have been held by the CIean Environmental Commission if deemed necessary, required post-operational environmental studies to assess the predictions of the original impact staternent and necessary steps to minimize or mitigate unforeseen environmental impairment, and an environmental impact assesment document that would have been available to the public.
A formal environmental assessment was not required and the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project was approved by EARP in 1982- As such, diversion construction commenced in 1983 along the La Salle River, Elrn River. and Mill Creek-
5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPITON
Three separate low lifting pumping facilities were installed to divert water at a maximum rate of 1.42 cms (SOcfs) fiom the Assiniboine River into the main stem and two tri~utariesof the La Salle River, The three diversions include the Assiniboine-Elm River Diversion, Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion, and the Assiniboine-Mill Creek Diversion.
A Post-Hoc ..ISsasment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 69 + Assiniboine-Elm River Diversion
This diversion was constmcted in 1984 to supply water for the toms of La Salle, Starbuck, and Sanfiord as well as domestic and irrigation use along the Elm River and La Salle Rivers (Figures 5-1 & 5.2)-
+ Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion
This diversion was constructed Ïn 1984 to supply water for the towns of La Salle. Starbuck, and Sdord, as well as domestic and irrigation use dong the La Salle River-
* Assiniboine-Miil Creek Diversion
This diversion was constructed in 1984 to supply water as weLl as domestic use along Mill Creek (Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, n-d.).
Table 5.1 provides a summary of the three pumping stations, showinp the number of pumps, total purnp rate, and pumping period for each of the three pumping stations.
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessnlent of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Projecr 70 Figure 5.1 The EhRiver Diversion (028 cms and 0.14 cms) (Water Resources Branch. 1996)-
L 1
Figure 5.2 The EhRiver Pump Channel (\Vater Resources Branch. 1996).
-4 Posf-Hoc.Irsessnient ofrlr c .hsÏniboÏne-Lu Sa& River Diversion Projecr 7 1 Table 5.1 A siimmq of the number of pumps- totai pump rate and pumping perïod for each of the kee pumping stations (Manitoba Department of NardResources. nd-).
- Assiniboine-Eh River Assinhime-La Sdie Assiniboine-Mill Creek Pump Feoture Diversion (v River Diversion (w Diversion (=Z")
Xumber of pumps 2: 0.14 cms & 028 cms 3: O-lrlcms, OA2cms. & 2: 0-14cms dk 0-14cms (cms) O. 14cms Total pump rate 042 cms 0.7lcms O-28cms Capacity Purnping through No Yes No Winter months (unless severe king occurs - potenaai for Booding problems) Pumping period -May 1 to Oct- 3 1 May 1 to Oct3L May 1 to Oct, 3 1 (annual) (OA2cms max,) (0.7 1 cms mm.) (028 cms max,) Nov. 1 to Apnl30 (038 cms max.) -Noce: The pumphg rates are variable. depending on the amount of rainfall received in the area.
5.3 IMPACT PREDICTIONS
During the predictive phase of the Assimioine-La Salle Diversion Project, a series of reports were completed, indicating various predicted impacts of the project The majority of the predicted impacts were descrïbed in the report entitled "AHAna@sis ofthe Benefis ad Costs of Azigrnenting the Flow of Wutel- Nr ihe La Salle Basin" prepared by Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd, 198 1- At the time of this study. baseline data describing biological population diversity, abundance, and distribution was generally Iacking. Thus, the environmentai impact assessrnent relied considerably on the professional judgment of the consultant and its sources (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd.. 198 1). However, where possible, impacts were predicted based on observations and statistics.
As indicated in several reports including the Hiidebrandt-Young study. two main environmental impact areas of concern for the project were both the La Salle and
-4 Posr-Hoc r2ssessn1enrof the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 72 Assiniboine River drainage systerns fkom Portage la Prairie to the Red River. For the purpose 2k scope of this study, only the La Salle River Drainage System will be examined in detaii, reviewing baseline conditions and predicted ïmpacts of ecologïcal. hydrological, economical?and social importance-
5.3.1 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT PREIDICTIONS
Impact predictions of ecological significance withui the La Saile River Basin included water quality. aquatic life including fish, and wildlife. Predictions were made pnor to diversion implementation by various reports iocluding the Hildebrandt-Young study.
5.3.1 (1) WATER QUGLITY.
It was predicted that diverted water would traverse the La Salle River down to the Red River in approximately one month, improving saline surface waters and sometimes improving the groundwater. Also, it was predicted that an increased water flow would heIp reduce the problems with concentrrtted algae in some areas (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1). It was predicted that continuous Bow would be maintained through the period of significant aquatic biological growth improving water quality in the lower basin (given that the potential degradation associated with increased up-stream aLaicukuralnon-point sources is not considered),
As well, it was predicted that if conditions were such that the diversion were to pump up to capaciiy in the summer (as demand warrants) and 5 cfs into the La Salle River in the winter. water quality in the La SaiIe River would become more uniform - the lowest quality would be improved and the best decreased (Penner, 1984).
A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project In addition, it was antïcipated that reliable Stream flows would allow discharse fkom lagoons adjacent to streams to be adequately diluted and that downstrearn reservoir contamination would possibly be reduced (Sweldo and Ludwig, 1977).
Irrigation return ff ows were raid as a related water quality concem. As indicated in the early 80'5, rnany people irrigated along the Upper and Central Sale of the La Salle River System It was predicted that if the diversion project were to occur, the problem wodd be minimized since: 1). surface nui-off would be minimal 2). the soils had good intemal drainage 3). aIL irrigation would be by sprinkler systems 4). no tile drainage would be anticipated (Discussion Paper, no date)
The shortage of potable fiesh water was a major concem for residents in the area- It was predicted that udess the diversion of the Assiniboine River into the La Salle River significantly improves water quality of the La Salle River or alternate water supplies are deveioped, water would continue to be transporteci from Winnipeg for domestic purposes (Cowan and Therrien-Richards, 1986).
5.3.1(2) FISH SPECIES
It was predicted in a 198 1 report that the diverted water would not facilitate upstrearn fish migration from the Red River. As well, dissolved oxygen would decline to nearly zero in the winter and no more fish survival would occur than what does under conditions pnor to diversion of water (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1). However, a report in 1983 indicated that increased winter flows on the La Salle River would reduce winter kill (Pemer, 1984).
-4 Post-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-Lu Salie River Diversion Project 74 Also, it was predicted ualikely that the La Salle River would be stocked with fish due to hi& costs and uraste of those not caught by mglers, thus no sport fisbg would delrelop- It was recornmended that screening be provided at diversions to prevent fish loss from source water (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1).
It was predicted that the diversion of water fiom the Assiniboine River to the La Salle River would be beneficial to al1 wildlife, The zone where water and land meet would be improved by an increase in water supply enhmcing wildlife due to the increased amount of edge (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1). An increased flow of water hto the La Salle River system would stimulate additional growth of herbs and shrubs dong the river. Increased water flow would hcrease the quantity of aquattic plants available to ducks and muskrats. The increased growth would provide denser cover and more food, resulting in higher suMvd and thus higher deer population densities. The travel comdor of dense cover would tend to spread deer over a wider territory (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd.? 198 1).
Improved water levels and flows could be expected to increase beaver populations and associated problems. Conceni was also expressed over a possible increased desire for river channelization which would be harmfiii to wildlife to the extent that meanders would be eliminated and replaced by straight channels (Bob Jones, rnemo).
It \vas predicted that the withdrawal of 4,546,000 litres of water over a duration of a six- month period to operate bathroom facilities at La Barriere Park would not reduce the pond level above the dam sufficiently to affect wildlife (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1 ).
-4 Posr-Hoc -;Lrsasment of the -4ssiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf 75 Chaprer 5: Impact Predfcrions
A summary of the ecological baseline conditions, predicted impacts. and documented impacts that actually occurred can be found in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Summary of ecologïcal baserine conditions and predicted and actual impacts alone the La Salle River (v-&ou liteinue cited as indicated in text).
BASELINE PREDICXED IMPACT CONDITIONS
+ Hi& concentration 6 Noreports levels of improvement in available on conductivity water quality (esp- ovedassessrnent (salinity), dissolved in lower basin) of water quality solids, presence of including decrease Detected levels of algal mats, and low in saline surface pesticides still oxvgen IeveIs waters, sometimes present in the La + Detected leveIs of improvement in Salle River certain pesticides groundwater, (reported in decrease in algal various studies) growth, streams adjacent to lagoons adequately diluted + Impeded upstream 6 No upstream fih + No reports movement, winter migration, no sport available fish-kill, elimination fishery development of game fish + No data available + No data available 6 No data availabIe + River system + Production + No reports provides feeding and enhancement of available nesthg habitat for ducks inciuding ducks which is Pintail, Teal, lessened during low Mallards Wood water supply. Ducks, and other production = one species broad per b Riverbanks used as + Improvement of No reports travel comdor available resuIting in higher deer population densities + Wildlife present Increased wildlife + No reports ïncluded small birds, habitat areas available great blue lierons, + Increased beaver beaver. musicrat, populations mink. fox. and coyote. no apparent sensitive habitat areas
-4 Post-Hoc .4ssessntenr of rlte Assiniboine-La Salk River Diversion Projecr 76 Chaprer 5: impact Predicrions
It was predicted that încreases in surnmer flow volumes rangincg to a maximum of approximately 1.4 cms below the joining of the La Salle River and Scott Coulee, (and 0-9 cms in the lower reaches) would not increase water lsvels si-pificantly. induce scounng velocities in the channels, or substantially alter greatly the neighbo~gsubsurface gradients under reservoir-fidl conditions (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1)-
It was anticipated that a reliable fiow would provide a decrease in the incidence of penods during which the impoundments would be drawn down, and a subsequent lonser- term reduction in local goundwater discharge near the channels (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd-, 195 1)-
It was also anticipated that where water is obtained 6om shallow subsurface sources which are co~ectedto streams, the quantity of available water would be increased. One exarnple is the town of Oaicville, which obtained its water fiom a shallow grave1 and sand aqui fer (Feasibility Report, 1977).
Under the alternatives considered, supplied flows would be in excess of upstrearn demands of approximately 0.9 crns (32 cfs) over four months. It is predicted that continuous flow would be maintained through the penod of si-miificant aquatic biological growth improving water quality in the lower basin (given that the potential degradation associated with increased up-snearn a-&cultural non-point sources is not considered). As well, reservoir levels would be high followîng the peak penods of evaporation losses, thus increasing winter water supplies (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1).
In the Upper Sale Watershed, West of Elie (including Mill Creek), differences in elevation between Stream courses and neighboring prairie elevations are considerably less than along the lower river. reflecting the smaller conaibuting areas and lower volumes of natural flow. Considerable downstream transport occurs only for a short period of the
A Post-Hoc -4ssessnlenr of the âssiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Projecr year due to spring snowmelt- Therefore, diverted flows would account for most annual discharge in the receiving streams, and essentiaily the entire discharge duririg the pumping period (HiIdebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1).
Water consumption may be expected to result in gradua1 decreases in volumes and velocities of flow fkom the point of diversion with progressing distance downstream through the major irrigation regions of the upper watershed. Stagnant warm urater conditions in the same part of the basin wouid be replaced with fiushing discharges afier a penod of post-construction re-stabilization durkg which signifiant sediment transport could be expected (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1).
One problem discussed in the Hildebrandt-Young study was the potentid Ioss of usable land due to higher sdace and ground water levels in areas adjacent ta the headwaters of the La Salle and EhRivers (where poorly defked channels currently result in high groundwater tables). As weU, increased seepage ïnto low-lying buildings was also a conceni. These problems required a more detailed assessrnent than the Hiidebrandt- Young study could provide (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 19s 1)-
The diversion project was expected to provide modest continuous flow into receiving strearns through the summer irrigation season (May-August). Minor drainage problems rnay occur in the Upper Sale Watershed which could be mitigated by planned channel improvements. Otherwise, any other negative hydrological effects in the La Salle Basin were expected to be minimal (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd,, 198 1)-
5.3.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT PREDICTIONS
As part of the Hildebrandt study, a benefit-cost analysis was conducted. The results indicated that there would be positive net benefits to be gained when diverting water fkom the Assiniboine River to the La Saile Basin based on the demand for municipal water
A Post-Hoc Assessntenr of the .4ssiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Chaprer 5: impact Predicrionv
supply and irri,oation purposes. Survey results ïndicated that a minimum of 583 hectares (1440 acres) of land were ïrrigated in the study area. Growers (imgating and those not irrigating) stated an interest in imgating a muiImum of an additional 486 hectares (1200 acres) (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 1981)- By 1990, the rate of imgztion growth was estimated at 10% or 2,428 hectares (6,000 acres) of the total potential imgable Iand. Furthemore, the rate was estirnated at 35% or 8.498 hectares (2 1.000 acres) by the year 2000. These rates are based on the report titled "Requirements for Lmgation Water Throughout The La Salle Diversion" by WE. Griffin ( 1979).
Within five years of the study, it was anticipated that a minimum of 0-71 cms (25 cfs) would be utilized for irrigation and municipal water suppIy. Within 10 years it is expected that a minimum of 1.39 - 1.42 cms (49 - 50 cfs) would be used if the water were available (~ildebrandt-bug& Associates Ltd., 198 1).
Impacts of increased water flows on livestock producers and recreational users could not be quantified. increases in livestock production wodd increase the benefitkost ratios based on irrigation and water supply benefits. hcreased fiow of water would be viewed as a positive net benefit to recreational users (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1).
Benefits of supplying water to Sanford, La Salle. and Starbuck were estimated at $3.96 per 1O00 Litres (average cost) in tenns of hauling water in 195 1 (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd.. 198 1),
There would be no irnmediate secondary benefits in tmsof new food processing plants or plant additions, although this could change depending on the rate of growth of imgated crops and the types of crops growers choose (Hildebrandt-Young Ltd., 198 1).
Total water supply benefits (including year round live streams, municipal water supply, enhancing non-imgation farm and domestic supplies, and firming up water supplies to
-4 Posr-Hoc Assasrnenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 79 existing imgators) were consewaavely estimateci to have a present value in excess of $2.8 million at a 5% discount rate (Schellenberg, 1983).
5.3.4 SOCIAL IMPACT PREDICTIONS
5.3.1 (1) MSTHETICS
It uraspredicted that the project would not result in any negative impacts with respect to park sites dong the lower La Salle River (Penner, 1984) such as the La Bamiere Park- Increased flows would improve navigation and enhance water quality in the area (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd,, 198 1).
+ Trappist Monastery Site Restoration
The Trappist Monastery site borders the La Salle River and is approximately 8 acres in area. The site would be complemented by improved water qudity which would enhance the general aesthetics of the ares-
+ La Saiie River Historic Therne Park
The Historic Theme Park is situated at the junction of the La Salle and Red Rivers- It was predicted that increased flows along the La Saiie River would not effect the aesthetics of the park site since water quality characteristics of the lower La Salle River would likely be attributed to back water effects of the Red River (Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd., 198 1).
-4 Posr-Hoc Assessmoit of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 80 La Barriere Park
The La Baniere Park, operated by Parks and Recreation Division of Winnipeg. borders the La Salle River close to the town of La Salie- Increased flows were predicted to enhance the water quality and ïmprove navigation along this stretch of the river (Hildebrandt-Young dk Associates, 198 1).
5.3.5 (2) RECREATION
It was predicted that with augmented flows, the overd water quality would be enhanced. therefore increasing recreationd activity dong the La Salle River. However, increased flows were predicted to possibly result in weaker ice in places which couid affect snowrnobile safety. This w-as recognized as a possibility wbich might be offset by a reduction in the current hazard of weak ice at groundwater inflow sites (Penne- 1983)-
Reports and databanks were exarnined to identiQ any documented impacts since construction of the diversion. This review was intended to detennine if there was any evidence of impacts that may or may not have been initially predicted- However? of the reports reviewed, none had indicated any direct impacts resulting fiom the diversion project. instead, several reports reveded water quality problerns resulting from increased pesticide use along the river.
A Posr-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salk River Di\*ersion Project 5.4-1 PESTICIDES
At the time of diversion construction, the concem of pesticide contamination in the La Salk River was -eaining little reco~~tion.Thus, no predictions were made in rems of the effect the diversion would have on concentration levels in the river- However. as a resulr of the preliminary findings fiom an initial study into the presence of pesticides in 198384, Manitoba Conservation and Environment Canada decided that additional work was needed to deterniine any potential impact on the La Salie River watershed.
Shortl y thereafier, an extensive survey study entitled "An A=-cultural Chemical Use FmSurvey of the La Salle River Watershed, 1984" w;ts conducted by Environment Canada. A full range of chemicals in curent use were identified fkom 150 fms surveyed within a specific area of the La Salle River Drainage Basin (Corn Newton to the town of La Salle). The survey was carried out during the months of July and August, 1984. Results indicated that a wïde range of herbicides and pesticides were used by growers in the La Salle Drainage Basin. Table 5.3 sumarizes the most widely-used herbicides, pesticides, and fùngicides at the tirne of the study-
Table 53 Summary of the most commonly used herbicides, pesricides, and fungicides in a 1984 farm survey study (in decreasing order of quantity applied) (Couran and Therrien-Richards. 1986).
Herbicide Pesticide Fungicide
Difenzoquat Terbufos Benomyl Tri-allate Carbofuran Carboxin Dicamba Diazino n Benomyl, Captan, Lindane Brornox_vnil. octanoate Endosulfan MCPA Carbaryl Diclo fop-methyl Gamma-HCH Sethoxydim Chlorphyrifos TnfÙraIin Dirnethoate Diclofop-methyl. BromoxyniI Deltamethrin 2-3-D
The movement of these chemicals fiom the site of application into surface waters was of major concem to the residents using the surface waters for domestic and livestock
-4 Post-Hoc ~~sessrnenr of the Assin ibo ine-la Salle Riser Diversion Project purposes (Co wan and ïhemen-Richards, 1986). The report recommended that follow-up studies be conducted to detemine the fate of the chernicds in the enwonment and their impact on water quality and aquatic life.
The study also indicated that few growers were practicing zero-tillage. Kowever. at the time of the study, zero-tillage was being promoted by agrïcultural representatives as a soi1 conservation technique- Zero tillage was considered to be a major change in agricultural practice. It was recommended îhat the trend shouid be monitored to determine if significant quantities of chernicals other than the ones identified in the swvey rnay be migrating into surface waters and creating potential health hazards (Cowan and Therrien- Richards, 1986). The study also recommended that a follow-up survey of the residents previously surveyed should be conducted in 1989 or 1990 to determine if pesticide use had significantly changed from the 1984 data as a result of increased zero-tillage farming-
In 1987, a third study entitled "Contamination by Pesticides of the La Salle and Assiniboine Rivers, Manitoba, Canada" was carried out by both Environment Canada and Manitoba Conservation. The study was intiated due to the on-going concern of agricultural pesticides present in the La Salle and Assiniboine River. The purpose of the investigation was to identi- the distribution of agicultural pesticides within the entire reach of the La Salle River and the Assiniboine River east of Portage la Prairie. Water samples were collected Fom sites along both the La Salle River (7 sites) and Assiniboine River (2 sites) on a monthly basis from August to Decernber. 1984-
Results indicated that dicamba, bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, and 2,4D were present in the La Salle River in concentrations ranging fiom 0.10 to 3.98 pg/L (dicamba: 0.1-4.0 p@L, bromoxynii: 0.10 pg/L, diclofop-methyl: 0.10-0.58 pg/L, and 2,4D: <0.204.0 pgL) (Themien-Richards and Williamsom, 1987). None of the pesticides were detected in the Assiniboine River possibly due to increased dilution fiom a larger volume of water as compared to the La Salle River. Whereas, trifluraIin and triallate were not detected in the water column but were quantified in forage fish and bottom sedlment sarnples in the La
- -
A Post-Hoc Assessn~entof the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf Salle River (fish specier included Brown bullhead. Brook stickleback. Central ~u~I~~Mou~)and Assimioine Rivers (Silver chub, Stonecat, Channel catfish. and Brown bullhead) (Themen-Richards and Williamsom, 1987). These findings suggest that even at undetectable low concentrations. these pesticides bioaccumulate in the biota. MCPA was not detected in any samples (possibly due to a relatively high detection limit). Aiso, there was no detection of pesticides tested in aquatic macrophytes.
ConcIusions to the study indicted that there was inadequate scientific data to determine the effects on aquatic organisms or on humans fkorn low level exposure to the detected pesticides- Also concluded was that detected levels of pesticides were not seen as a significant threat to humans. However, concem was raised at concentration levels of triflurah and triallate found in forage fish and the sediment of the La Salle River. The study indicated that much lower detection levels were needed to determine acceptable concentrations in the water column for multi-purpose water use including the use as a potable urater supply (Themien-Richards and Williamsom, 1987).
A fourth study conducted in 1995, entitled "An Assessrnent of Pesticide Residues in Sdace Waters of Manitoba, Canada" was carried out by the Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Consewation, The La Salle River was inc1uded as part of the study with resdts indicating detected levels for 2,4-D, bromoxynil, dicamba, aiclopyr between 1988 and 1994. summarized in Table 5.4. At site WQ0068, irrigation objectives for bromoxynil. dicarnba, and sirnazine were exceeded in 4%, 62%, and 4% of the samples, respectively. Whereas, at site WQ00614 (west of EIie), irrigation objectives for bromoxynilo MCPA, and diclofop-methyl were exceeded in 25%. IO%, and 10% of the sarnples, respectively. Also, the aquatic life objective for trïfluralin at this site was exceeded in 7% of the samples- At site WQ00615 (upstream of WQ614), irrigation objectives for bromoxynil, MCPA, and diclofop-methyl were exceeded in 25%, 8%, and 8% of the samples. Al1 other sites did not have concentrations of pesticides that exceeded water quality objectives (Currie & Williamson, 1995).
A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 84 Table 5.4 Sratistical summary of severaI pesticides detected aiong the La SaUe River between 198 S and 1993 (Wiltiamsoa, 1995).
WQ Site Statistic 2,4-D Bromosyaü Dic.mb8 Triclopyr
WQ006S SSarnpIes 24 24 21 11 Min, ~0.05 (0-0 1 A formal environmental assessrnent was not required for the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project and was approved by EARP in 1982. Diversion construction cornrnenced in 1983 dong the La Salle River, Elm River, and Mill Creek. However, impact predictions were made of environmental, hydrological, economical, and social importance. Environmental impact predictions gathered fiom the literature included an increased improvement in overall water quality. increased wildlife habitat areas, higher populations of deer, beaver. and duck , and no upstream fish migration or sport fishery development. Hydrological impact predictions included modest continuous flow into receiving streams through the summer irrigation season (May-August), minor drainage problems possibly occurring in the Upper Sale watershed, Otherwise, any other negative hydrological effects in the La Salle River Basin are expected to be minimal. A Posr-Hoc hsessntenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 85 Chaprer 5: Impact Predicrions Econornic impact predictions concIuded that there would be positive net benefits to be gained when diverting water fiom the Assiniboine River to the La Salle River Basin C based on the demand for municipal water supply and irrigation purposes. Social impact predictions included irnproved aesthetics of the Trappist Monastery Site Restoration and La Barrïere Park as a resdt of inçreased flows and water quality dong the lower reach of the ~a Salle River. Based on the database and report search, there were no impacts docurnented as a direct result of the diversion project. This is not surprising since monitoring within the La Salle River Basin in tems of water quality and quantity bas been lacking since project implementation. As such, special consideration was ne& to identi@ impacts f?om the diversion project that are effec~gwater quality and quantity dong the La Salle River. The following chapter discusses the results 6om a water quality analysis canied out using data collected dong the La Salle River. -4 Post-Hoc -4ssessnientof the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project CHAPTER 6: WATER QUALZTY ANAI: YSIS INTRODUCTION Water quality and quantity are directly linked by nature due to the assimilative properties of water (Environment Canada 1988). Having an adequate supply of water is of little value if that water is not of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of its intended use. A water quality analysis was conducted to provide a better understanding of water quality in the La Salle River and to better define the causes of water quality changes that occur dong the river. As established in Chapter 5, the purpose of the analysis was to compare the water quality before and afier project implementation to see whether or not improvements have occurred and where problems still remain. More specifically, the andysis will detemine whethqr concentrations have: changed over tirne; are related to Stream flow: increased or decreased beniveen upstream and downstream sampling sites: changed since diversion implementation; and exceeded water quaiity objectives for the protection of dnnking water sources, aquatic life and wildlife habitat, im-gation uses, recreational uses. and sources of livestock water, As well. the overall water quality condition of the La SaIle River will be ranked based on a calculated water quality index. A Posr-Hoc Arsessnzent ofrhe -4ssiniboine-La Sal/e River Diversion Projecc 87 6.1 Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guideliues Water quality standards, objectives, and guidelines have been established at the provincial and national level allowing one to determine if the water quaIi- of a surface supply is adequate and safe for its indented use- The use of the rems: criteria, standard, objective, and guideline cm vary betulleen government agencies. For the purpose of this analysis, these terms will be definai as set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, (1993) descnied in Table 6-1 - Table 6.1 De finitions of water quality standards, objectives. and guidefines (CCME, 1993)- TERM DEFINITION Criteria 6 Scienéfic data evaluated to derive the recommended lïmits for water uses. Water QuaIity 4 An objective that is recognïzed in enforceable environmenmi conno1 laws Standard of a level of government- water Quatity -4 numencal concentration or narrative statement which has been Objective esrablished to support and protect the desiwated uses of water at a specified site- Water Quality 4 Numericd concentrations or narrative statemenr recommended to support Guideline and maintain a desi_mated water use, Many provincial, territorial. and federal agencies consult Canadian and foreign water quality guidelines to assess water quality and to develop site-specific water quality objectives. A Posr-Hoc Assessm enr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion PrQecr 8 8 6.1.1 NATIONAL WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES At the National level, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) were delreioped to provide basic scientific idormation to assist in establishing water quaiiw objectives for specific sites (CCME, 1993). These guidelines apply only to inland surface waters and groundwaters, As well, Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) were developed specifically for domestic use of water (drinking and household uses) and can determine if a treated drinking water supply (Le. treated tap water) is suitable for human consumption, or requires fiuther treatment. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality (GCRWQ) have dso been established at the National level, indicating conditions suitable for primary and secondary recreational uses such as swimming, skung, boating, etc. 6.1.2 PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES Water quality objectives have been derived by Manitoba Conservation using the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, US EPA critena, as well as criteria in other jurisdictions outside Canada and the United States. However, Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives (MSWQO) may differ slightly fiom Canadian Water Qualiv Guidelines depending on local conditions. The Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives (MSWQO) were first established in 1977. The Red River watershed was classified in 198 1 according to water uses. As weH, water uses along the La Salle River were identified within the Red River watershed. In 1988, revisions were made to the MSWQO report- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Sal[e River Diversion Projecr 89 In 199 1, the Manitoba -MrÜster of Environment asked the Clean Environment Commission to hoId public hearings in order to establish dacewater quality objectives for the Red and Assiniioine rivers and their tn'butarïes within and downstream of the City of Winnipeg, including the La Salle River (Manitoba Environment, 199 1). However, to date- no specific objectives for the La SdeRiver have been established- As well, there are no specific objectives developed for the Assiniboine River upstream of the diversion. ho wever general objectives have been established, Cunently, major revisions have been proposed to Manitoba Conservation water qudity objectives in a technical drafi for review and comment entitIed 'CManitobaWater Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines" (Williamson, 200 1)- This document is currently under review: however once finalized, it will supercede the "Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives" and "The Development and Use of Water Quality Objectives in Manitoba" developed in 1988 (Williamson, 200 1). MSWQO are dehed for raw water sources. When the maximum acceptable concentrations of the variable in water is not exceeded, the water suppiy will remain suitable for its intended use with only minimal need for treatment (Williamson, 2000). Both MSWQO and CWQG are defined for domestic, aquatic life. crop irrigation, recreation, and livestock watenng. Livestock guidelines and objectives may be presented as a range of values due to the variation in sensitivity between different types and ales of livestock. Irrigation guidelines and objectives may also be presented as a range of values depending on the type of crop and soi1 present. Typically, the lower end of the range for each objective and/or guideline applies to greenhouse and vegetable crops, which are usually more sensitive (less tolerant) than cereal crops- MSWQO for recreation are intended for primary recreational use, including full contact activities such as swirnrning, skiing, wading, etc. Whereas, GCRWQ are designed for bot h pnmqand secondq recreational uses. Secondary recreational uses involve on1y -4 Posr-Hoc .ksessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 90 incidental water contact such as boa~g.canoeing. etc. The revised provincial objectives currently being proposed include primary recreational uses only. MSWQO oRer four levels of protection for each water body withïn the classification area as follows: 1). No Protection 3)- Routine Protection 3). Hi& Quality Designation 3).Exceptional Value Designation Based on Manitoba Consemation water body claçsification, the La Salle River Systern falls under a "routine" level of protection. As defined in the "Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines" (Technical Drafi, Williamson 2001), "routine" protection is acliieved by using a technology-based approach (water quality standards) and when necessary. deriving more saingent requirements using the water quality-based approach (water qudity objectives). In theory, this level would provide reasonable protection f?om unacceptable impacts to al1 but a midl percentage of aquatic species for most of the tirne (Williamson, 2000). + Flow Levels The La Salle River is typically an "intermittent strearn" under provincial classification. MSWQO should apply when the flow is 0.003 crns or great- howeve- when Stream flow is less than 0.003 cms, minimum levels of quality should be maintained so that objectives are not exceeded within downstream water bodies to which the intermittent strearn is tributary (Williamson, 2000). These objectives should apply at al1 times when important uses are supporteci because of pooling during periods of low natural flows. Also, narrative water quality guidelines should apply at al1 times regardless of the arnount of flow (Williamson, 2000). Thus, objectives apply at al1 times, regardless of the flow level of the La Salle River. A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of rhe Assiniboine-La SaIle River Diversion Projecf 91 + Mixing Zones Under provincial authority, MSWQO are not expected to be met in some areas immediately adjacent to a discharge pipe since a zone of initial dilution is necessary for the mixing of wastes and water. These zones are recognized as areas subject to loss of value (Williamson. 2000). Guidelines have been developed to minimize the loss of value such that beneficial water uses are not unacceptably impaireci. 6.2 DESCRIPTION Data used for the water quality analysis was provided by Manitoba Conservation, Water Quality Management Section covering a broad spectrum of variables sampled along the La Salle River. Only selected parameters are used in the analysis that are reasonable indicators of water quaiity adorhave been seen as a concern in past studies. AS well, both the Elm River and Mill Creek were not included in the analysis since water quality monitoring is not conducted dong these waterways. Historically. water quality data has been collected by Manitoba Conservation on an intermittent basis at various points dong the La Salle River since 1973 (Figure 6.1 ). In July 1988, Manitoba Conservation established six permanent monitoring stations along the La Salle River listed as follows: WQ0068.00 (downstrearn. near St. Norbert) WQ0069.00 (downstrearn. near La Salle) WQ0070.00 (central, near Sanford) WQ007 1.O0 (central, near Sthuck) WQ0072.00 (upstream, near Elie) WQ0073.00 (upstream, just east of Portage la Prairie) A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of rire -4ssiniboine-LaSalk River Diversion Pmject 92 Figure 6.1 Water quality sampling on the La Salle River collected by the Water Qualiw Management Section, Manitoba Conservation (Lowman, 200 1). Historically, sampling at these sites typically occurred quarterly. However, site WQ0068 is the only site that is currently being monitored. Sampling at sites WQ0069-73 ended in June, 1997. Al1 samples in the data set were analyzed at the Enviro-Test Laboratories, Winnipeg, MB (formerly the Environmental Sciences Centre). May compounds analyzed had undergone changes in detection limits over the period of record. Changes occurred for a number of reasons including: + changes in analytical instruments, + changes in analytical protocols, and + previous reporthg of the instrument derection limit @DL) instead of the more appropriate method detection limit (MDL) (Williamson, 1 995). A Pusr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 93 In the literame, detection bit changes have been reco-gnïzed as being an inherent problem in the statistical analyses of most water quality data (Williamson. 1995). For the purpose of this water quality analysis, the raw data was "swepted" for values less than (0 or greater than (>) the detection Iimit. It was assumed that samples reponed below (or above) the detection limit were equal to the detection Mtvalue. For example, a coliform bacteria sample recorded as cl0 was adjusted to IO- This method of dealing with detection iimits ensured that the highest possible value would be taken into account allowing for a conservative approach in the data assessment. Water £low data used in the analysis was obtained ffom Environment Canada, Water Survey Branch, Winnipeg, Manitoba. The data was measured daily along the La Salle River near Sanford (1915-2000). Historical sites also rneasured dong the La Salle River included a flow station near Elie (1979-1996) and near La Salle (1935-1936), however this data was not included in the analysis- A detailed description of the methods used for the water quality analysis are found in Chapter three. 6.3 DATA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results fkom the analysis concluded that the La Salle River displayed high levels of phosphorus along the entire system, low oxygen levels fürther upstrearn, higher turbidity, and conductivity further downstream. SeveraI trace metals and certain pesticides were also detected downstream. The overall water quality index for the La Salle River was ranked for most years as "fair" (al1 statistical data discussed in the following section is surnrnarized in Tables 1- 16, Appendix 1). O A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the -4ssiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 94 6.3.1 Nutrients A major water quality issue of significant importance in the prairie and boreal plah ecozones of Western Canada is eutrophication- Most large river systems that flow across these regions contain relatively high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen. Large river systems in southem Manitoba that are of particular concern include the Assiniboine, Souris, and the Red River systems. These systems ail cary significant amounts of nutrients into the province impactkg river and streams that flow throua the region (Williamson, 2000). Utimately, Lake Winnipeg is the eventual recipient of the nument loading which is transported by many of these rivers and streams. Since water is diverted fiom the Assiniboine into the La Salle River, hi& nutrient concentrations are not surprising nor uncornmon, The result of eutrophication leads to excessive growth of algae and macrophytes witbin an aquatic system, which cm decrease biological divesity across the entire ecosystem, favouring the gowth of opportunistic species. Algal blooms are commoniy dominated by species of blue-green algae, some which are producers of nerve and liver toxins. Water uses at Rsk fiom this type of algae include domestic, livestock watering, and recreation. Blue-green algae can dso be carried up through the food web, adversely affecting fish, waterbirds, and other wildlife. Algal blooms can aiso clog treatment plant filters, and give unpleasant taste and odour to treated water (Williamson. 2000). -4 Posi-Hoc Assement of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 95 Figure 6.2 Algal growth upstrearn of Elie, near sampling site WQ0072 (Water Resources Branch. 1996). The decay process of algae and macrophyte populations lowers the level of dissolved oxygen in the water, Low oxygen levels can have a detrimental effect on aquatic animals including fish and intervertebrates. Decreasing levels of oxygen cm also release additional phosphorus ffom the sediment for more potentid algal gowth (Home and Goldman, 1994). Site WQ0068 During the period 1973-77 (pnor to diversion implementation), there was an increasing trend in phosphonis levels at site WQOO68 as indicated in the linear regession andysis (Table 4, Appendix 1). However. between 1988-2000, phosphorus concentration levels remained unchanged. As well, results fiom the two-sample analysis indicated that phosphonis concentrations were si-&ficantly higher afier construction of the diversion (data used between 1988-2000) as compared to before implementation (1 973-77) (Table A Post-Hoc ilssessment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 96 2. Appendix 1) which could be related to an on-going uicrease in a-grïcultural activïw in the are& The two-sample analysis also indicated that total ammonia and total organic carbon concentrations at this site decreased afier project implernentation as compared to before developrnent. This decrease may have been attributed to flow au-gnentation fkom the diversion project (Table 2, Appendix 1)- Resul ts fkom the linear regression analysis indicated that dissolved nitrate-ni tri te concentration levels were positively correlated with flow levels between 1988-2000 (Table 5, Appendix 1). This correlation could be attributed to agrïcultural surface nui-off due to heavy rainfail and snow-melt periods. Failure rates of objectives established for ammonia, nitratehitrite (dissolved & soluble), NKJ (soluble), and phosphorus were calculated and are summarized in Table 6.2 (also see Table 15. Appendix 1). Phosphorus failure rates were extremely hiph- High levels phosphorus could be attributed to high concentration levels ador the objective value \vas not appropriate for this particular river system. The province is in the process of developing a nutrient management strate,oy for surface waters in Manitoba to assist in developing a more accurate objective value for phosphorus. Table 6.2 Objective failure rates for seIected numents at site WQ0068 (1973-2000). Parame ter Obj. Faiiure Rate (%)' Before (1974-831 After (1984-2000) - Ammonia (tot) O O Carbon (tot,or_e.) Nia' ~ra' Nimte/Niuite (diss) O O NitratetNitrite (sol) O O NU(sol) N/a2 la' Phosphorus (tot) 94 IO0 1 - Objectives are based on Table 3.3, Chapter 3 2. No current objective estabfished for this parameter. A Posr-Hoc Assessnienr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 97 + Site WQ0070 Further up-stream fiom site WQ0068, site WQ0070 results fiom the two-sample analysis indicated that total phosphorus and dissolved nitrate-nitrite concentrations were significantly higher afier construction of the diversion (data used between 1988-2000) as compared to before implernentation (1973-77) (Table 3, Appendix 1)- This could be a result of increased nutrient nui-offand/or the resuit of higher nutrient concentrated waters diverted fiom the Assiniboine River (Williamson, pers-corn), Total organic carbon concentration levels si-gnificantly decreased afier diversion implementation at this site as indicated f?om the bvo-sample analysis (Table 3, Appendix 1). The cause of change is unknown, however increased flow au-nentation is one possibility. The linear regression analysis indicated that dissolved nitrate-nitrite concentration Ievels were positively correlated with flow levels between 1973-1977 (Table 6, Appendix l), and decreasing in concentration Ievels over the the period. NKJT concentration levels increased over the time period but had no correlation with flow (Table 6, Appendix 1). Between 1988- 1996. there was no si-~ficantchange in nitrogen concentration levels nor correlation with tio~levels (Table 7, Appendix 1)- Between 1958 and 1996, total ammonia concentration levels were nergatively correlated with flow (Table 7, Appendix 1). Typicallyz this is an indication that ammonia is entering the surface water as a point-source pollutant in the Sanford area where a relarively constant volume is discharged into the river. Also between 1988 and 1996, total organic carbon concentration levels decreased over time possibly due to better quality water diverted into the La Salle Riva. Whereas phosphorus concentration levels increased at this site which could be partially due to hurnan-induced activities (Table 7, Appendix 1). -4 Post-Hoc Assement of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 98 + Among Sites (paired t-test) During the period 1974-1996, phosphorus concentration levels changed significantly between sites WQ0073-72 and WQOO7 1-70, increasirrig downstrearn. However. site WQ0070 had si_onificantly higher levels of phosphorus upstream compared to site WQ0069 further downstream (Table 1, Appendk 1). Intensive a-gicultural activities in the upstream areas most likely attn'iute to the higher levels detected upstream. As well. between sites WQ0069-68, results indicated significant mean difference in nitrogen (NKJT) concentrations, increasing downstream- AU other sites had no si-gnificant change in nutrient levels among sites between 1974 and 1996. Objective failure rates were calculated for ammoilia, nitratehitrite (dissolved & soluble), NKJ (soluble), and phosphorus for sites WQ0069-73 and are summarized in Table 6.3 below (see also Table 14, Appendix 1). Phosphorus levels failed the objective on almost every sarnple which poses concern. However, as mentioned previously, fiuther investigation is needed to determine the cause of such a high failure rate. It could be the result of high levels input into the system and/or a poor objective established. Ct should dso be noted that hi-& phosphorus levels are typically seen throughout the Great Plains region (i.e. Manitoba, Saskachewan, Alberta, northern areas of the US) (Williamson, pers-com). - - A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the -4ssiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Table 63 Objective failure rates for selected nutrients ac sites WQûû69-73 (1973-1997)- Parameter Objective Faiiure Rate (%)' WQ69 WQ70 WQ71 WQ72 WQ73 ( 1973-97) (1973-97) (1973-97) (73-83) (83-97) (73-83) (84-97) AmmonÏa (rot-) O O O O O O O Carbon (tot.org.) ~ia' ~/a' ~/a' Wa2 ~/a' M'a' ru'; a' Nitrare.Nimte (diss) O O O O O O O NKT (sol) ~/a' ~/a' Na' ~/a' ~/a' ~/a' N/ a' Phosphorus (rot) 1 00% 100% 100% 90% 1 OOYO 90% 100?/0 1, Objectives are based on Table 33. Chapter 3 2. No curent objective estabfished for this parameter. 6.3.2 Specific Conductivity Specific conductivity is a measure of the dissolved saits in water and is closely related to total dissolved solids. + Site WQ0068 Beaveen 1973 and 1977, conductivity levels were negatively correlated with flow rates at site FrQ0068 (Table 4, Appendix 1). Between 1988 and 1996, (afier diversion irnplementation). conducbvity levels were also negatively correlated with flow rates (Table 5' Appendix 1). As discussed earlier. concentration levels that are negatively correlated with flou. is typical of a point-source entry into the river (input at a constant volume). Ground water intrusion that is highly saline is diluted with increased flows, however when flow levels are low, saline ground water intrusion comprises a larger proportion of the surface water. Results of the two-sample andysis indicated no significant change in mean difference in conductivity concentration before and afier diversion implementation (Table 2, Appendix 1). Overall. objective failure rates for conductivity are sumrnarized in Table 6.4 below (Table 15, Appendix 1). A Posr-Hoc .4ssessntenr of rite Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project 1 00 Table 6-4 0bjectir.e failure rates for conductivity at site WQûO6S ( 1973-2000)- Parameter Obi, Fdiure Rite (5%)' I - Objectives are based on Table 3.3: Chapter 3 O Site WQ0070 Between 1973 and 1977 (pnor to diversion implementation), conductivity levels were negatively correlated wïth fiow rates at site WQ0070 with concentrations decreasin, over the the period (Table 6, Appendix 1). Between 1988 and 1996, (afier diversion implementation), conductivity levels were also negatively correlated with 80w rates however concentration levels increased (Table 7, Appendix 1)- Results of the hvo- sample analysis indicated that conductivity concentration levels significantly uicreased afier diversion implementation compareci to Ievels pnor to construction. Increased concentrations may be a result of increased water withdrawal fkom the area, preventing adequate dilution. Among Sites During the perïod 19744996, paired t-test results indicated a signifiant change in conductivity behveen sites KrQ0070-69 where concentration levels increased downstream (Table 1, Appendix 1). This is most likely the result of the intrusion of saline groundwater between the two sites. Overall, objective failure rates for conductivity for sites WQ0069-73 are summarized in Table 6.5 below (Table 13. Appendix 1)- Failure rates at sites WQ70 and WQ71 are A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the 44ssiniboine-LaSalk River Diversion Projecct 101 probably areas of greater saline intrusion which then flow downstream to give hïgher detection at site WQ69. These resuits are consistent wïth prevïous reports. Table 6.5 Objective failure rates for conductivity at sites WQ0069-73 (1973-1997)- Parameter Objective Flilure Rate (%)L WQ69 WQ70 WQ71 WQ72 WQ73 - - 1- Objectives are based on Table 33,Chapter 3 6.3.3 Turbidity & Total Suspended Solids + Site WQ0068 At site WQ0068, results f?om the two-sample analysis indicated that turbidity concentrations were significantly higher ahconstruction of the diversion (data used between 1988-2000) as compared to before impiernentation (1973-77) (Table 2, Appendix 1). Higher turbidity levels are likely a result of higher diverted flows andor natural erosion over time. Whereas. total suspended solids did not display any significant change in concentration levels between these hvo time penods (Table 2, Appendix 1 ). Between 1973 and 1977, (pnor to diversion implementation), turbidity levels increased over time whereas totai suspended solids were strongly correlated with flow (Table 4, Appendix 1). Between 1988 and 2000, (after diversion implementation), turbidity and totaI suspended soiids concentration levels were strongly correlated with flow rates (Table 5, Appendix 1). Turbidity and total suspended solids often display positive correlation with flow which the analysis has shown (Williamson, pers.com.)- However, -4 Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 102 concentration bels of both turbidity and total suspended solids did not si-güficantly change over this time period (Table 5, Appendix 1). Overdl. objective failure rates for turbidity and total suspended solids are summarïzed in Table 6.6 below (Table 15. Appendk 1). Total suspended solids displayed a high objective failure rate. As in the case wiîh phosphonis levels, it is questioned whether the objective value established is reasonable. Howeveq in the technical draft of the "Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines". new objectives have been proposed for both hrrbidity and total suspended solids. Table 6.6 Objective failure rates for nubidity and total suspended solids at site WQ0068 (1974-2000). Parameter Obj, Faiiure Rate (94)' &fore (l974-77) After (l988-2000) Turbidity 50 88 Total Suspended Solids 10 53 1, Objectives are based on Table 33, Chapter 3 Site WQ0070 At site UrQ0070. results from the two-sample analysis indicated that turbidity concentrations were significantly higher after construction of the diversion (data used between 1958-2000) as compared to before implementation (1973-77) (Table 3, Appendix 1). Turbidity levels were higher at this site after flow au+gmentation which is typical of most diversions. Total suspended solids did not display any significant change in concentration levels between 1973-77 or 1988-2000 (Table 3, Appendix 1). A Post-Hoc Assessnlenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr L 03 Between 1973 and 1977: (prior to diversion implementation). turbidity and total suspended solids Ievek were positively correlated wîth flow at this site (Table 6. Appendùc 1). Between 1988 and 1996. (afier diversion implementation), there uras no significant correlation with flow or any significant change in concentration IeveIs (Table 9. Appendix 1). + Among Sites Both total suspended soiids and turbidity concentrations increased downstrearn between WQ0069-68 during the period from 1974 to 1996. As well, turbidity levels increased si+pificantly downstream between sites WQ0070-69 (Table 1, Appendix 1)- Incrases in turbidity and total suspended solid concentration levels is expected to increase downstrearn in most river systems. Naîural erosion, algal blooms, and increase in organic matend are ai1 conuibuting factors. Overall, objective failure rates for turbidity and total suspended solids for sites WQ0069- 73 are summarized in Table 6-7 beiow (see also Table 16, Appendix 1). Objective faiIwe rates are generally higher further downstream- TabIe 6.7 Objective failure rates for tur&idityand total suspended soIids at sites WQ0069-73 ( 1973- 1997). Parameter Objective Failure Rate (%)' WQ69 WQ70 WQ7l WQ72 WQ73 B/A B/ A B/A B/A B / A Turbidity 70/81 20 / 43 50 / 43 10 / 24 0/24 Total Suspended Solids 13 / 24 13 i 14 13 / 10 O/ 10 019 1. Objectives are based on Table 3 -3, Chapter 3 - A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the .ksinibboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 104 Chapter 6: rtrnter Qualin- 6.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen + Site WQ0068 At site WQ0068. resuIts ftom the two-sample analysis indicated that dissolved oxygen concentrations urere si_pificantly higher after construction of the diversion (data used between 1988-2000) as compared to before implementation ( 1973-77) (Table 2. Appendix 1). This could be atûibuted to flow au-gmentation which increases the aeration of the water giving better assimilation capabilities, as well as dilution of organics. Results indicated that dissolved oxvgen levels did not significantly increase during 1973 to 1977, but were positively correlated with flow (Table 4, AppendLv 1). Between 1988 and 2000, no trends were observed nor any correiation with flow (Table 5, Appendix 1). Overall, objective Failure rates for dissolved oxygen are summarized in Table 6.8 below (Table 15, Appendix 1). Table 6.8 Objective failure rates for dissolved oxygen at site WQ0068 (1974-2000). Parameter Obj. Failure Rate (%)' Before (1974-77) Aiter (1988-2000) Dissohed Oxyzen 23 11 t . Objectives are based on Table 3.3. Chapter 3 + Site WQ0070 At site WQ00707 mean concentration levels of dissolved oxygen did not significantly change after diversion implementation (Table 3, Appendix 1). However, between 1988 and 1996 dissolved oxygen levels were positively correlated with flow. A Posr-Hoc Assessnienr of the Assiniboine-La Salk River Divenion Pruject 105 + Among Sites Dissolved oxygen levels decreased downstream between sites WQOO73-72 (Table 1. Appendix 1). This may be due to increased nutrient loading fiom sewage lagoons adjacent to the La Salle River ador livestockmog operations Levels irnproved doumtream between sites WQ0072-7 1. Overall, objective failure rates for dissolved oxygen for sites WQ0069-73 are swnmarized in Table 6.9 below (Table 14, Appendix 1). Increased failure rates upstream indicate the influence of agricultural activities and sewase lagoon effluent resulting in the reported lower oxygen levels. Table 6.9 Objective failure rates for dissolved oxygen at sites WQ0069-73 (1973-1997)- Parameter Objective Faiiure Rate (%)' WQ69 WQ70 WQ71 WQ72 WQ73 Dissolved Oxygen B / -4 B/ A B/A B/A BIG 0124 O :29 10 / 19 20 / 67 10 / 43 1. Objectives are based on Table 3 3. Cbapter 3 6.3.5 Chlorophyii a + Site WQ0068 At site WQ0068, chlorophyll levels were only sampled afier diversion construction. Thus, a cornparison in chlorophyll a concentration levels could not be made before and afier diversion construction. However, between 1995 and 1997, chlorophyl a levels did not increase over time but were positively correlated with flow at site WQ0068 (Table 5, Appendix 1)- Positive correlation may be the result of increased flow levels that carried algal growth downstream, increasing the concentration of algal levels at site WQ0068. A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-Lu Suile River Diversion Projecr 106 4 Site WQ0070 Again. insufficient data was lacking between 1973 and 1977, thus no trends were observed during this time period- However, between 1995 and 1997, chlorophyl a levels did not increase over time but were positively correlated wiîh flow at this site (Table 7. Appendix 1)- Again, the movement of algae downstream with increased flow levels could explain the correlation- Increased phosphorus levels resuiting fiom increased flow may have also stimulated algal activity at both sites WQ0069&70. 4 AU Sites During 1995-1997, there were no significant mean differences in chiorophyll a concentrations between sites (Table 1, Appendix 1)- 6.3.6 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 4 Site WQ0068 At site WQ0068. results fiom the two-sarnple analysis indicated that fecal coliforms counts were sipificantly lower after construction of the diversion (data used benveen 195 8-3000) as compared to before implementation (1 974-77) (Table 2, Appendix 1). This could be partially due to technological advances in sewage treatment processes pnor to discharge. Between 1974 and 1977, @rior to diversion implementation), fecal coliform levels increased over time at site WQ0068- No correlation with flow was evident (Table 4, Appendix 1). Between 1988 and 1996, (afier diversion implementation). no significant trend \vas observed (Table 5, Appendix 1). -4 Posr-Hoc Assessntenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 107 Overall, objective failure rates for fecal coliforms were quite Iow and are sumrnarized in Table 6.1 O belotv (Table 15, Appendix 1)- Parame ter Obi. Faiiure Raie (Y.)' Fecal Coiifonns 2 O 1. Objectives are based on Table 3 3,Chapter 3 + Site WQ0070 At site WQ0070. results fiom the two-sample analysis indicated that fecai colifoms counts were sirgnificantly higher before construction of the diversion (data used between 1988-2000) as compared to before implementation (1973-77) (Table 3, Appendix 1). A,oain, technological advances in sewage treatment processes prior to discharge could have an influence on lower coliform counts after diversion implementation. Based on the linear regression analysis, fecal coliform levels did not sipificantly change over time or display any correlation wïth flow before and after diversion implementation. + AU Sites During 1973-97, there were no significant mean differences in fecal coliform concentrations between sites (Table 1, Appendix 1). Overall, objective failure rates for fecal coliforms for sites WQ0069-73 are summarized in Table 6.1 1 below (Table 14, Appendix 1). Similar to turbidity and total suspendecl soIids, it is likely that fecal coliform concentrations moved downstream to lower reaches with increased flow levels. A Post-Hoc -.lssessr>tentof the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 108 Table 6.11 Objective failure rates for fecal colifonns at sites WQ0069-73 (1973-1997). Parameter Objective Faüure Rate (96)' WQ69 WQ70 WQ71 WQ72 WQ73 Fecal Coiifonns B/A B/A B/A B/A B/A 33 / 10 4415 22 /O O / 0 1L!5 1. Objectives are based on Table 33, Chapter 3 + Site WQ0068 No si-gnificant changes in pH levels were observed at this site between 1973-77 and 1988-2000 (Tables 4 & 5, Appendk 1). As weu, pH levels were not correlated with flow. Overall. objective failure rates for pH levels are summarized in Table 6.12 below (Table 15, Appendix 1). Table 6.12 Objective failure rates for pH levels at site WQ0068 (1974-200)- Parameter Obj.- Failure Rate (./a)'- - Before (1974-77) After (1988-2000) PH O 1. Objectives are based on Table 3.3. Chapter 3 + Site WQ0070 Again, no changes in pH levels were observed, nor correlated with flow rates (Table 6 & 7, Appendix 1). A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr ofrhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecl 109 + Ali Sites During 1974-97, there were no significant mean differences in pH concentrations between sites (Table 1, Appendix 1). Overdl, objecüve failure rates for pH levels for sites WQ0069-73 were low and are summaxïzed in Table 6.13 below (Table 1% Appendix 1). Table 6.13 Objective failure rates for pH at sites WQ0069-73 (1973-1997). Parameter Objective Eailure Rate (./O)' WQ69 WQ70 WQ71 WQ72 WQ73 - -- 1. Objectives are based on Table 3.3, Chapter 3 6.3.8 Hardness + Site WQ0068 At site WQ0068? results fiom the two-sample analysis indicated that hardness concentrations did not ~i~gnificantlychange afteer construction of the diversion (data used between 1988-2000) as compared to before implementation (1973-77) (Table 2, Appendix 1). Between 1973 and 1977, (prior to diversion implementation), hardness concentrations were negatively correlated with flow due to dilution. Whereas, between 1988 and 2000, (afier diversion implementation), no trends were observed (Table 4, Appendix 1). Saline water as a result of groundwater intrusion is often "harder7' than surface water (which is "softer") (Williamson, pers. corn.). With lower flow levels, groundwater intrusion is more likely, resulting in increased hardness levels. A Post-Hoc Assessnient of the Awiniboine-la Salle River Dive~sionProjecr 110 + Site WQ0070 Between 1973-77 & 1988-1996? hardness did not change significantly during these time periods nor displayed any correlation with flow (Table 6 & 7, Appendix 1). + ALI Sites Between WQ0072-7 1, hardness concentrations sigüficaotly decreased downstream (Table 1, Appendix 1). This could be the resuit of dilution fiom diverted water. where more surface water is coming into these sites- 6.3.9 Trace Metals A linear regression analysis was conducted on both arsenic and lead at sarnpiing site WQ0068. ResuIts indicated that arsenic was not correlated with flow, however decreased over the time period 1988-2000. Lead concentrations were positively correlated with flow, but did not display any significant change over time between 1988-2000- Overall, objective failure rates for selected trace metals are sumrnarized in Table 6-14 below (Table 15. Appendix 1). Both copper and lead failure rates, though low, are a concern and depend on the magnitude of exceedance- Whereas, both iron and manpanese are naturally occurring trace metals with expected high levels displayed, Manitoba objectives for iron and manganese need to be modified to best suit the area. A Pusr-Hoc .4ssessmenr of rire Assiniboine-La Sulle River Diversion Project il 1 Table 6-13 Objective failure rates for selected trace metais at site WQ0068 (1974-2000). Parameter Obj. Failurc Rate (%)I Before (1974-77) After (ï98û-2000) Arsenic O O Cadmium O O COPP:~ 8 6 Iron- 77 78 Lead 4 -7 ~an~anese' 67 8 5 Nickel O O zinc O O 1. Objectives are based on TabIe 33, Chapter 3 2. Iron and manganese concentration IeveIs are na&y hïgh in southem Manitoba soiis and subsequently, in neighboring surface waters, 6.3.10 Pesticides A linear regression was conducted on five pesticides, namely Dicamba, Bromoxynil, 2,4- D, MCPA, and Trifluralin at site WQ0068 between 1988-2000 to detect any trends over time. Redts indicated no significant change in concentration over time and no correlation with flow. However, heavier agriculturai activity and subsequent pesticide run-off occurs upstream and may not be detected at the furthest sampling site downstream (WQ0068)- Overall, objective failure rates for selected pesticide levels are summarized in Table 6.15 below (Table 15, Appendix 1). Dicamba failed on every sarnple tested in the years indicated. However, the objective is most likely not appropriate for prairie waterways since the guideline was based on research studies involving heavy volumes of irrigation water in BC for orchard operations. Manitoba guidelines have not made any adjustments to this objective to date. The rernaining pesticides indicate 1ow failure rates which are A Posr-Hoc .4ssessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 112 Chapter 6: R'arer @[al@- probably due to background levels fiom particdate nansported by ai.into surface waters. This is not surprising in an agicultural area within close proximity to surface waters. TabIe 6-15 Objective failure rates for selecred pesticide leveis at site VC7Qûû68 (1 98&2OOO)- Parameter Obj. Faüure Rate (Y.) 2.4-D 0% Auzizine Bromoxynil Dicamba Lindane MCPA S imazine Trifluralin 6.3.11 Water Quality Index Site WQ0068 The overd water quality of the La Salle River was caiculated for sampling site WQ0068 fiom 1988 through until 2000 using 25 variables based on the Canadian Water Quality Index. Results indicated that 54% of the time, the condition of the river at this site was ranked as fair, sometimes departing from natural or desirable levels over the recorded time period. However, 38% of the tirne, this site was ranked as mara@nal or poor with river conditions frequently departing fiom natural or desirable Ievels. The lowest index was reported in 1994, with a CWQI value of 3 1 where conditions were almost always threatened or impaired. This would have been, in part, influenced by a high concentratiofi reading for MCPA, lowering the index value, raising concem. Ody in 1988 uras the condition of the river ranked as good, rareiy departing fiom the natural ievels (See Figures 6.3 & 6.4). A statistical summary of the data is shown in Table 8, 9, and 12 in Appendix 1. Preference is obviously given to indexes falling in the "good" to "fair" range, where indexes fdling in the 'marginal" and "poor" are of a concern. ------ -4 Post-Hoc Assessrnenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr The CWQI was also calculated exciuding the trace metals a1~minu.m~mansanese. and iron, with index values increasing slightly in every year. This was not surpnsing since hi& concentrations Levels of these metals were reported in the original data which greatly exceeded the objectives, lowering the CWQI when included (See Figures 6.5 8: 6.6). + AU Sites Water quality was calculated for al1 sampling sites dong the river Erom 1973 to 1977 and 1995 to 1997 using 9 selected variables based on the CWQI. Because pesticide and trace metai variables were excluded, the water quality indices were not ranked as it would gve a false representation of the "overall" water conditions dong the river- However? the index provides a summary of plant nutrients, bacteria, and major ions for cornparison along the river. Results indicated higher mean WQI values during the mid-70's than in the mid-90's at al1 sample sites along the river. During the mid-70's there was significantly less water use activity along the La Salle nver which is reflected in higher WQI values at al1 sites. WQI values during the mid-70's is a good representation of the river's water quality conditions pnor to au-grnented flows and increased water activity (see Tables 10, 11, and 13, Appendix 1). As well, a decreasing trend was evident for the WQI fiom upstream to downstream sites during both the niid-70's and mid-90's (Figure 6.7). This is probably due to the accumulated effects of pollutant loading Merdownstream. Interestingly, pnor to diversion implementation, it was predicted that overdl improvement in water quality wodd occur, particuiariy in the lower reaches which has not occurred. In fact. the lower reaches of the nver reveal the most deterioration in water quality. A Post-Hoc Assessnrenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project C WQI Values at Sample Site WQ0068 (1988-2000) YEAR Figure 6.3 AMU~CWQI values at sample site WQ0068 fkom 1988 to 2000. CWQI Ranking at Sample Site WQ0068 (1988-2000) 1O0 GOOD FAR R MARC. YEAR Figure 6.4 Ranking of annual CWQI values at simp1i.g site WQ0068 fiom 1988 to 2000. A Post-Hoc Assessrnenr of the Assiniboine-La &l/e RNer Divenion Projecr 115 Comparison of WQI Values at Sample Site WQ0068 (1988-2000) 25 Variables - I t -2 2 Variables Figure 6.5 Comparison of annual CWQI values at sample site WQ0068 fiom 1988 to 2000 (with and without three trace metals, namely aluminum. hn, and manganese), CWQI Ranking at Sample Site WQ0068 (1988-2000) MARG. Figure 6.6 Ranking of annual CWQI values at samplûig site WQ0068 korn 1988 to 2000 excluding three vanables, narnely aluminwn, bon. and maaganese- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 116 Chapter 6: Kzter Qualin- Mean WQI Values at ail Sample Sites During mid-70's & 90's WQ Sample Station Figure 6.7 Cornparison of mean WQI values at ail sample sites during the mid-70's and 90's. A summary of the findings ffrom this chapter, discussed below, includes identified water quality trends over tirne? relation to Stream flow? concentration changes between upstrearn and downstream sampling sites, concentration change since diversion construction. CWQI. and water quality objective failure rates at al1 sites along the river. Unless mentioned, the water quality parameter displayed no change in concentration over time. + Water Quality Trends Results fiom the linear regression analysis indicated that at sampling site WQ0068, fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus, and turbidity had increased between 1973-77. Whereas, at il Posr-Hoc Assessrnent ofrlte Assiniboine-La Salie River Divemion Project sarnpling site WQ0070, nitratehitrite decreased whiie NKJ Increased between 1973-77. From 1988-1 996, totaI organic carbon decreased at site WQ0070 (See Table 6-16). Tabie 6.16 Concentration change În water quality variables over cime ar sampling site WQOO6S & tVQ0070 (1973-77& 1988-96)- WQ Sampling Site Carbon Fec. Coi. N/N NIÇJ Phos, Turb. WQ0068 1973-77 'r ! ? ? WQ0070 1973-77 1 L 'r t 1988-96 1 1 I i (Note: ? = increase over the, = decrease over tirne)- Relationship with Stream Flow Results fkom the linear regression analysis reported that at sampling site WQ0068, flow was positively correlated with lead and total suspended solids and negatively correlated with conductivity, and hardness between 1973-1977. At the same site, flow was positively correlated with chlorophyl a, dissolved oxygen, lead, nitratehitrite, total suspended solids, and turbidity between 1988-00. At sampling site WQ0070, flow was positively correlated with nitratehitrite, total suspended solids, and turbidity and negatively correlated with conductivity between 1973-77. At the same site, flow was positively correlated with chlorophyl a and dissolved oxygen and negativeIy correlated with total ammonia and conductivity (see Table 6.t 7). ------ A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Pmjecr 118 Table 6.17 Concentration correIatioa with flow at sampIing sites WQ0068 8; WQ0070 ( 1973-77 &198S- 96.00). 1 WQ Site E c 3 V, E -2 f 0 G 3 cm f! g I z z c e! 8 S L 4i c' I lVQO068 1 73-77 - - -k 1 ! 1 + 1 88-00 / 1 + -I+l I+l+t i+l+ 1VQ0070 1 73-77 1 I - + Iti+ 1 88-96 - + - ff 1 1 I (Note: - = positive correlation with flow. - = negative correlation with flow), + Concentration Changes Arnong Sites A surnmary of certain water quality parameters which changed si-enificantly in concentration levels between water quality sampling sites is shown in Table 6.18. Table 6.18. Concenmtion change in water quality variables between samplùig sites WQ0068-73 (1974- 96). / dongSites / Cond. 1 W 1 Hdn. / NYI 1 Ph. / TSS / Turb. / (Note: ? = increase in concentration downstream, = decrease in concentration downstream)- -4 Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Project 119 Chaprer 6: Akrer Qua& + Concentration Changes Since Diversion Construction Since diversion consmictio~some parameters displayed concentration changes which are sumrnarized in Table 6.19. it is evident that irnprovemenrs in water qudity since diversion construction occurred at sampling site WQ0068 for total ammoniq total organic carbon, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform bacteria. However both phosphorus and turbidity increased significantly since diversion construction. At sarnplinj site WQ0070, improvernents occmed after diversion impiementahon for specific water quality parameters, namely conductivity, nitratehitrite (soluble and dissolved combined), phosphorus, and widity which all decreased in concentration. However, total organic carbon and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations increased afier construction. Table 6.19 Concentration change in water quality variables since diversion implementation at sâmpling site WQ0068 & WQ0070 (1973-77 & L988-00)- / WQ Sampling 1 Amm. 1 Cbn 1 Cond. 1 DO 1 FecEoi. 1 NiN 1 Phos. (Note: ? = increase in concentration since diversion construction. = decrease in concentration since diversion construction)- + CWQI Results fiom the Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) indicated that between the perïod 1988-2000 at sampling site WQ0068, ody one year ranked "good", seven ranked "fair"? four ranked "marginal", and one ranked "poor". Also bas& on the CWQI, water quality conditions along the La Salle River dunng the mid-70's were cornparativeiy A Posr-Hoc -4ssessnient of the .4ssiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 120 better than during the mid-90's which is not surprising aven the increased activïty along the river in the past two decades- Deterioration in urater quality is particularly noticeable in the lower reaches of the river- The CWQI is also usefiil in comparing index results with similar river systems in the province and across Canada- The index is used by the Water Quality Management Section to describe the overall water quality of proMncidly monitored river systems in Manitoba. For example, one of their recent studies on the Pipestone Diversion of the West Souris River Conservation District reported a water quality index of 30 between 1996- 1999 (Hughes, 1999). + Water Quaiity Objective Faïiure Rates Phosphorus levels were reportedly high in aLl reaches of the La Salle River. As mentioned in earIier chapters, sewage effluent and agicultural drainage water are rich sources and contribute to river eutrophication. Nutrient loading, including phosphoms, can lead to overproduction of vegetation, reduced water clarity, and deoxygenated waters- Pnor to diversion implementation, it was predicted that there would be a decrease in algae production along the river- However increased phosphoms levels since diversion implementation, particularly at site WQ0068 (which influence algal growth) and reported increased dgal production along certain stretches of the river suggest that overall improvements have not occurred. Although, it is becoming more evident that areas including the La Salle River Watershed are naturally enriched with phosphate and that the objective for phosphorus may not be suited to the area (Williamson, pers.com)- Thus, high phosphorus detections may be a combination of human-induced influences and natural occurrences. A Posl-Hoc Assessm enr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 12 1 Both total ammonia and nitratdnitrite did not exceed water quality objectives at any sites between 1973 and 1997, Whereas total organic carbon and NKJ do not have objectives established by the province. 4 Objective failure rates for conductivity increased downstream, particularly at sampling sites WQ0069 and WQOO68. Of particular concern is the toxiciq of saline waters to aquatic life induding fish and other species. As discussed earlier, saline -8oundwater intrusion is the probabre cause of hi@ conductivity levels with ùifiltrating rain water dissolving rninerals fiom soi1 and rock. Longer residence times pennit greater degrees of rnineralization. Prior to diversion implementation. it was predicted that conductivity levels would improve. At site WQ0070, concentrations levels did not improve, uicreasing since diversion construction. At site WQ0068, no improvement was detected since the diversion. Total suspended solids concentrations displayed higher objective failure rates firrther downstream. Potential effects of these suspended solids on water quality include reduction of water clarïty and photosynthetic potential of aquatic plants as well as clogging fish gills and srnothering eggs and macrouivertebrates. Turbidity levels were quite high with significant failure rates between sarnpling sites WQOW 1 to WQOO6S. As discussed earlier, turbidity and total suspended solids are cIoseIy related and typicaliy follow similar trends with similar impacts on the aquatic environment, Low oxygen levels in the upper reaches of the La Salle River are a concern, especially at sarnpling sites WQOO72&73. These oxygen-depnved areas resuk in poor fish habitat, high sediment nutrient releases, and increased treatment required for drinking water supplies. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Propcr 122 Chapter 6: Fater @ta@- Fecal Coliform objective failure rates were Sequent with siightly hi*er failure rates ar sampling sites WQ0069 between 1973 and 1997. On-going monitoring is important since sewage Iagoon operations are in close proximity and are potential sources of contamination. As mentioned earlier?other potential sources include direct run-off fiom pastures and feedlots dong the river. Stream bottom sediments of the La Salle River act as a reservoir for fecal coliforms- Prior to diversion implementation, it was predicted that nver water adjacent to sewage lagoons would be adequately diluted. Significant improvements have been detected at al1 sites which is probably due to both improved technology and increased flow rates. pH levels had very low objective failure rates and should not be a concern. However, monitoring is important as pH levels can influence specie composition and effect the availability of nutrïents as well as the relative toxicity of many trace elernents. There is no water quality objective established for hardness as it is not seen as a threatening component to the nver system. However, hardness cm influence the form and toxicity of some heavy metals, and thus on-goinç monitoring is important. Trace metals were at or below detection limits for the majority of sampling at site WQ0068. Copper and lead exceeded objective levels on several occasions, however the magniîude of exceedance was relatively small. Iron and manganese exceeded objective levels fiequently, however they are natural occumhg metals and do not pose a concem. The objectives for iron and manganese are not well suited to this river system. A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 123 In general, pesticide objective failure rates were relatively low, however Dicarnba ievels failed the objective on every occasion. The objective value needs to be re-examined as the criteria used to establish the value was not associated with Manitoba irrigation practices, Sources of pesticide contamination include agrkuitural run-off as well as small concentrations transported in the atmosphere. Aquatic life is varïabiy sensitive to pesticides with impacts on fish including reduced growth and survivability of fish eggs and young as well as various fish diseases. Pnor to diversion construction in 1983, water quality conditions dong the La Salle River were descnbed as having hi& levels of conductivity and dissolved solids, presence of algal mats, low oxygen levels, and detection of certain pesticides. The environmental impact assessrnent conducted by Hildebrandt-Young Ltd. in 1981 predicted that the diversion project would improve the overall water quality of the La Salle River system, especially in the lower basin. hprovements predicted included a decrease in saline surface waters, sometimes improvement of groundwater, decrease in algal growth. and fecal colifonn bacteria counts that would be adequately diluted. However, overall results fiom the analysis concluded that since diversion implementation, the La Salle River displayed high levels of phosphorus along the entire system. low oxygen levels Merupstream, higher turbidity, total suspended solids. and conductivity levels further downstream. As well? several trace metals and certain pesticides were also detected downstream. These results clearly indicate that water quality problems still remain along the La Salle River. ------ A Posr-Hoc Assessmmr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion PI-ojcc! CWAPTER 7: WATER USAGE INTRODUCTION Water supply is an important constraint in local planning of rural development in the La Salle River Watershed. Important factors to consider include total water availability and seasonal fluctuations when planning for water uses such as municipal drinking water. irrigation livestock watering, and sewage effluent discharge. This chapter discuses survey results (1981 & 2000) on water usage and associated environmental concerns along the La Salle and Elm Wers. 7.1 SURVEY RESULTS, 1981 Prior to the implementation of the Assini'boine-La Salle River Diversion project in 1984, a survey of the residents living along the waterways was conducted as part of the Hildebrant-Young Study in 1981. The purpose of the study was to defhe and quanti@ the water uses at that time as well as potential uses if the diversion project was to be implemenred. Also, the attitude of the residents involving the proposed diversion was detennined (Hildebrandt-Young, 1981). A total of 45 residents in the La Salle River Basin were canvassed (in person), completing the questionnaire which took place in July and Augw of 198 1. Also, interviews were conducted with several representatives of various go vemment departments, pnvate companies, municipal representatives, and local producer groups. The overall response to the survey in 1981 was positive. Respondents were very interested in the development of a diversion project with a definite demand for increased flows along the La Salle River, Elm River? and Mill Creek. The demand for water was mainly atttributed to growers in the agricultwal industry, notably vegetable and small- A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La SdeRiver Diversion Projecr 125 Chaprer 7: Fater Lkagc bit fmers (with the majority located in the upper reaches of the La Salle River Basin where excellent soi1 and climate conditions occur). As well, there was a large demand for a potable water supply downstream of the town of Elie between Starbuck and St- Norbert (Hildebrandt-Young, 198 1). Also, residents located easnuard of Elie anticipated improvements in water qudity, recreation, and aesthetics as a result of the diversion. Several major concerns identified fkom the survey included possible increased flooding, increased pooling of water in low lying areas of land located close to the watercourse. and increased drainage problems due to higher water levels, especially in the spring (partïcularly nez Portase la Prairie where residents live in low lying areas near the headwaters of Eh River), Also, increased nutrient ntn-off? as a result of anticipated irrigation expansion along the rivers, was raised as an environmental concem by some of the residents. Since project implementation in 1984, no follow-up surveys addressing the public's view towards water quality and supply issues as a result of the diversion project were carrieci out. As such, 21 residents were surveyed during spxïng, 2000 as part of the research outlined in Chapter three, 7.2 MAIL-BACK SURVEY, 2000 A total of 31 surveys were mailed to landowners (licencees & non-licencees) along the La Salle and Elm Rivers beginning in April, 2000 with response rates as indicated in Table 7.1. - - - - A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr Table 7-1 A summary of response rates from questionnaires maiied to landowners/operators dong the La Salle Br Elm Rivers. Respondent Type La Saüe River EhRiver Sent Received Sent Received Wate Ftight Licencee 19 13 6 3 Response Rate 75% 6074 7.2.1 LA SALLE RIVER RESPONDENTS As indicated in Table 7.1, 15 people responded to the La Salle River survey questionnaire (both water licensees and non-licensees) (see Appendix 3 for a detaiied breakdown of responses for each question). Also, note that answers chosen as "not appiicable" are excluded fkom statistical calculations, 7.2-1 (1) Background Information Type of Respondent The majority of the respondents in the La Salle River area are land owners/operators. However, there were two respondents fkom Hutterite colonies. Site location of respondents were distributed relatively evenly among the three watersheds dong the river. People have lived and/or operated at their indicated location ranging anywhere fiom 3 to 68 years. Interestingly, 71% of the respondents have lived andor operated at this location prier to construction of the diversion project in 1984. Thus, many of the responses shouid not be viewed as "snap judgements", but rather as observable conclusions. A Post-Hoc Assessnzenr oftlte Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr FmOperation The rnajority of respondents descriied their site location as a farm, being their sole source of income. Most respondents indicated that cereal -gains were grown on their farm operation, foilowed by oilseeds, hit, and vegetables- The majority of respondents indicated a three to four year crop rotation. Only one respondent indicated livestock as being part of their farming operation. However, fùrther investigations would have to be done in order to assess the relative importance of livestock in this area and any impacts on the local environment, 7.2.1 (2) Water Usage A high fiequency of respondents indicated that river water was used for garden and field irrigation. Other uses of river water included lawn watering, greenhouse & livestock watering, and field spraying. Respondents indicated that no water is hauled in. Compsratively, during the 198 1 survey, 58% (26/45) of the respondents indicated water was hauled in for domestic consumption, 53% (24/45) for wastewater, and 2% (1/45) for watering livestock (Hildebrandt-Young, 1981)- It was calculated that a total cost of $234.00 was paid by each household per year to haul water in (in 198 1 dollars). Respondents also indicated that municipal water (treated river water tiom the Sanford Water Treatment Plant) was used for domestic consumption. lawn watering, livestock watering, and spraying. Well water was used mainly for domestic consumption, however it is also a source of water for garden irrigation. lawn watering, greenhouse, and livestock watenng. Several dugouts were indicated as storage sites used for domestic consurnption and field spraying. Off-Stream Storage Sites Several respondents (21 %) indicated that they pump water from the La Salle River to an off-stream storage site for uses such as domestic consumption and field spraying. A Posr-Hoc Assessnient of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 128 However in 1999. oniy one of the three respondents used the dugout (see Table 7.7 below). Table 7.2 A sumrnary of tbe dimensions and storage capacity of the three dugouts. The total volume of water stored in dugouts dong the La Saile River was approximately as indicated by the three respondents- Dugout Specifications Dugout #1 1 Dugout #2 Dugout #3 1 No. Times Duoout FiUed in 1999 1 O 1 O 1 l / Total storage czpacity In 1999, the total number of imgated crops as indicated fiom seven respondents along the La Salle River was estirnated at 260 hectares (573 acres)- They indicated that crops such as potatoes, vegetables, and berries were grown. These people were asked also to provide the volume of water applied to their crops in 1999 (which is tabulated in Appendix 3). However, the majority of them stated that there was a considerable variation in their irrigation water requirements IÎom year to year depending on precipitation, Precipitation is monitored at weather stations located in Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie, however there is no monitoring withh the La Salle River Watershed. Future Im,~ationExpansion The majority of respondents (83%) indicated that they intend on expanding theü existing operation within the nea five years- In total, respondents predicted that approximately 191 additional hectares (420 acres) is anticipated to be imgated within the next five years. The majority of respondents (75%) indicated that their water source for irrigation would be fiom the La Salle River. Other sources included Mill Creek and the Assiniboine River- The type of crops indicated varied among respondents (potatoes, vegetables, fruit, bemes _erass seed, trees nursery, and herbs). The type of irrigation equipment anticipated to be used varied with each respondent, however the solid set was slightly more popular than other equipment, Five of six people (83%) indicated that they will install or expand their irrigation system within five years- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the ,Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 129 Water Use (other than field crops) A total of five people responded to this question: indicating that water was withdrawn fkom weUs. dugouts, and the La Saile River for uses such as domestic, lawn. &-den. spraying, washing equipment, and Livestock, A breakdown of the estimated rnonthly volume of water withdrawn in 1999 for each water use can be found in Appendix 3. 7.2.1 (3)Water Suppiy Shortages Al1 respondents who currently use river water and weil water indicated that they do receive a sufficieut supply at di times, Comparatively, responses repoaed fiom the suwey conducted in 198 I indicated that 50% were aot receivbg a suffïcient water supply fiom the river at al1 times (Hildebrandt-Young, 198 1)- Also, pnor to construction of the diversion project, a total of six people indicated that they wodd begin an irrigation operation if the project was implemented since they felt that there was not an adequate supply of water at the time. The following section covers water quality, recreation, and environmental conservation and Uicludes the responses of four additional people (two golf course operators, a sewage lagoon operator, and a water treatment operaîor). The responsa were grouped together since they were asked the sarne questions. As a result, nineteen people (15+4) had an opportunity to respond to the next sections. Water Quality Cornparison People who lived or worked in the La Salle River Basin area since at least 1983 were asked to rate the quality of the current water as compared to the original water quality prior to construction of the diversion project in 1984. The majority of respondents (80%) felt that the curent water quaiity of the La Salle River had irnproved since the development of the diversion project in 1984. Also, 50% felt that well water had improved since the development of the project. Whereas 33% of the respondents felt that A Posi-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Project 130 Chapter C Forer Lkage the well water was worse in tenns of water quality. Only one respondent indicated no change in the quality of well water. Commerzts-fiom respondents who_fXtconditions improved since 1984: "Berrer unrerfio~v.river contains higher iwerleveii " "CT;arer qualiw lzas improved due ro some movement.water does nor get stagnant" "Abr ar srale, more flow throughour summer month. water heIs are higher " '2ess algae. clearer " "More rvater" "ï7ze continuotzs pumping fiom the Assiniboine River" " We now have a flow all summer " 'The river used ro fall below the damand go stagnanr " Commertrs from respondents who fe[t conditions worsened since 1984: "Grearer arnounr of pollution in the water pumped out of the Assiniboine Rive fiom intensive hg operationsr. grearer amount ofpollution entenng the La Salle. " Diversion Impacts People were asked if they felt that the diversion had any positive impacts on fish, wildlife, vegetation, soils, social (e-g. recreation, etc-), economic, or other areas since construction. Fourteen people responded, with answers diverse covering al1 areas of impact with an emphasis on social, fish, and economic issues as noted in the comments below. Results fiom the survey conducted in 1981 indicated that 89% saw benefits associated with increasing the flow of river water. Also, respondents in the western portion of the study axa near Portage la Prairie saw increases in the watet available for irrigation as the major benefit. People who were located roughly fiom Elie eastward through the study area saw increases in water quality (particularly for domestic consumption in the towns) and increased recreationd possibilities as the major benefits (Hildebrandt-Young, 198 1). A Pus f-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecl Chapter 7: &ter Usage Positive impacts noted: "Berterwater for the imgated areas, boaring, and recreation- TourLrm helps local businesses".- "There has been a lot of canoerngfiom the La Barn-ere Park w7e.st" "Businesses muy locate, knowing that good water k available- " "Higher water lmek allowfor more cmoeing, etc,,, " "With continual waterflou; there are a lot more wate$owl andpredatory birak along the river. We have recreationaw caught at least jhe d~ferentspecies of fish, and the river k growing in popularï& in recreation such as canoeing,fihing, skiing, ssnowmobiIing, skating and waIAing in the winrer".- "Tizere is currently rnorefish, there were ve~fewfish in the river before the diversion, now there arejack frsh. Peoplem at the dam (a 10 55 16 Jack was caught a few years aga)- Srrawbem. fanns and golf courses are ocamph ofeconomic impacts in the ares"- "Fkh were on& seen when the Assiniboine Riverflooded into the La SuZie River prior to datelopment of the diversion project, Nowj%h are to befound ut all times, " '*.4lwqvs a standard Ievel of good water all year- '" 'Had rve not had the project, we would not be able tu drawfiom the river at al1 in the summer due fo iow water 1evels"- "The wafer quality k good. Keep the quanti@ ut the past Ievel and let the famer use it- Don? stan charging for thk water, the equ-ent to im@te cos& enough" "lnmy opinion, the La Salle River will have a much greater impact as time progresses, nere Ls a great poiential for recreation. domestic water sources, ieation and agricultural uses. 1 would be vety interested in a joint horticttltural venture zo use thtk water". Nine of the tweive respondents indicated either none or were unsure of any negative impacts as a result of the diversion project. The remaining three respondents (25%) indicated negative impacts on wildlife, vegetation, and social issues. Comparatively, results reported fiom the 198 1 study indicated that 33% (15/45) foresaw problems associated with the increase in flow dong the ïiver- Major problems mentioned were flooding, inçreased marsh in areas of low lyhg land located close to the watercourses, and increased drainage problems. These concerns were more fiequent closer to Portage la Prairie. Negative impacts noted: "One of the negative eflects we ire noticed is the increased population of beavers. Th- are desrroying man-v trees along the nYerbank and causing a lot of damage"- " We seem &O have a major problem rvïth beavers destroOvinga lot of yozrng and old growfh aLong the riverbank Something is going to have tu be done soon. Othenvrse there won 't be any wees lefi AIso deer srr@pirrg bark ofyoung treesT'- "Crtrrentb. i see very few racoons or clams, As a child, when we were at the river, we wouldjind large clam approx. sis inches hg. Now wefind the oddshell bur on& three to four inches long. Also. there is now more weeds wirh clear rvater, A Fend of mine is a sXiIled frapper. and said there wuvew few clam in the river. and thus Iess racoons (1 muid have io agree with him) ". "Flowing rvater in the \tinter creates umafe ice conditions so winter activities on the ice (such as snow- mobiling. etc.) are unsafe "- The dam at La Barn-ere Park needs ro be maintained and monitored to ensure water latels on the river- It has happened that the dam was opened and water drained ;O vee low 1eveZs"- A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 132 Chaprer 7: R'arer Usage Water Quality Rating Eight of the nineteen respondents (42%) rated overail river water quality above average, six (32%) as average, and five (26%) as below average, One respondent rated water quality as "average" in the summer and "very pooi" in the winter (the response was averaged to 'wr"). Several respondents indicated thaî the water quality detenorated when the river water was stimd The majonty of respondents indicated that odour (67%) and cloudiness (50%) were two major concems with the quality of the La Salle River water. Most respondents indicated that river water qualiv was poor durîng hi& water levels (including sprlngtime) and during summer and winter months. Interestingly, results kom the 1981 survey vned similar water quality concens incIuding colour, odour, and taste (Hildebrandt-Young, 1981) where poor water quality was evident "at times of low water", foiiowed by "ail of the tirne". A Posr-Hoc Arsessmenr of the Assiniboine-Lo Salle River Diversion Project 133 Chapter 7: Warer t'sage Cloudiness: "Clou* especiaf& afier downpours (grey in color) " "Cloz<& ar high ;vater lm& " "-itIu& most of the tinte" "Surnerimesmu* especial[v in the winrer" "Odour is 6ad when weather Ls wann ". "Odozrrand tare Îs worse in the spnngtïme " "Odourfiom rhe smvage " Colour: "Sumerimes b fack in rhe winter " Taste: "Poorraste in the tvinter" Hardness: "Very hard in the winter (up to 300ppm) wiiereas acceptable belLr approximately 100-I 5Oppm. Five of nine respondents (56%) rated the overaii water quality of weUs above average, whereas four respondents (44%) rated below average- Comparatively, the 198 1 survey revealed that 4% of the respondents rated the overail water quality above average, 8% rated average, and 88% rated below average. Based on the percentages calculateci, the public has seen an improvement in well water quality. From the past survey in 1981, water fiom deep weils was rated as good, whereas water from shallow wells was rated as poor- In other areas, shallow weils located close to the river are link hydraulically to the river water so that during time when the river water quality is poor, so is the quality of the well water- men asked to describe weli water qualiiy charactenstics, responses varied in terms of poor quaIity and included characteristics such as cloudiness, colour, odour, hardness, taste, and alkalinity, Three (3) people responded to this question with two responses indicating that weU water quality was poor at dl times of the year, and one response indicating poor during the winter rnonths. Cornparatively, results fiom the 1981 survey reported that poor well water quality characteristics included colour, odour, and taste (Hildebrandt-Young, 198 1) and was of poor quality "at al1 times", followed distantly by "at times of low water"- A Post-Hoc Rusessrnent of the Assiniboine-lu Salle River Diversion Pmject 134 Chapter 7: fiter O'sage Concerns with water qurlity: "The munic@al lagoom dumping into the Lu &[le River causes some concern" "ifseems that otler the last fav-vears. there has been o lot more algae in the La &[le River, 1think recenr flooding and rvashofhas added a lot of nirrogen to the wgter and makes it a vent good environment for algae *'. "There is a problem wirh some livstock operatbas too close to the river or creek a4oing the river"- $ 'Dumping of ruw sewge- " "The problems occur because no one regdates the people who are contaminaring the water. Our regulating bodies (government) consider the hog facton-es und processing plants tu be so important to their bottonr lines that th- fiog factories and processingpiants) are allowed to poliure the rivers with no comequences '1 "Lirnited accessibility due to low water Ievek and algal overgrowrh " "'1hope the irater qiraliy will never decline- 27rere se- to be more algae and silt in the lastfour-vears, "Tlre summer water qualie seems to be gerting worse each Frdue to increased sources of nitrogen entering the riverw- "Because we receive dnnnXing water out of the La Szlle River through Sanford treanent plunr. it b a concern about runofifi-om iivestock operation and other dumping in the river. This should be monitored on a continukg bask 1 hope th- cm supply us with quality dnhking warerfor a long tirne". Ways of correcting the situation(s)? "It seem ro be getting worse each -vear. Perhaps rythere w0as a wuy to limit the amount of nirrogen wushed into the riverfiom many sources"- "if people have an ejector or field. rnmaybe a grant should be made available to hook into the munierpal sewage line. Even litfie projecr would help eliminaîe some problem ". "River sur\:cillance"- "Tlze level of the danis should be raked and the warer level allowed to rbe- This would make the river much more accessible and keep the algaefiom fonning in the summer'*- "More rvaterflow to alleviate algae growrh " "Increaîepurnpage dunng FPÏnter and Summer months " 7.2.1 (5) Recreation Thirteen of eic&teen respondents (72%) indicated that they use the La Salle River for recreationai purposes. The more popular recreational activities indicated aIong the La Salie River included ice skating and snowmobiling foilowed by cross country skiing and canoeing. Comparatively, 50% of respondents fiom the 198 1 survey Indicated a definite increase in recreational usage of the river travelling East fiom Elie to Wm-peg (Hildebrandt-Young, 198 1). The iargest number of respondents (47%) rated the overaii conditions of the La Salle River for recreational purposes as "good"- Whereas, 20% of the respondents rated the conditions as "satisfactory", and 33% rated "poor". The majonty of respondents indicated that recreational conditions are poorest during summer months followed by the winter rnonths- A Post-Hoc Rrsessrnenr of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Project 135 If conditions are pr,piease describe these conditions: "The La Salle River seems to become very green (algae reedk. etc-) during the summer month- 1 wiZl presume tizar water run-offi-om fiel. wlrere fertiILter /chernicals are presenr could play an adverse eflect "- "The Lu Salle River Lî not deep enough, therefore ir hem~when pumping occurs. men the warer wam in the La Salle River in the summer. usualiy the &er LF covered ~vitha green layer of algae '.- "Zlhere LF a lot of growth and deb- in the La Salle River"- 'Although river Ievels flow over the dams conrinuousiy. the Ievel could ea.ri[\. be higher (ta allow betrer boat use) "Run-offdunng spring lirnits recreanbnal use" "People used ro sivim in rhe La Salle River, but we don? see thar anymore'*- " We me the La Salle River for a lot of recreation and hope to conrime in thefiture " If conditions are poor, can you suggest any ways of correcting the situation(s)? "Consrruct smaller dams along the river to keep Ievek htgher"'. "Usual[v in the late fall. a severe fiost will kill the algae. and th13 probabiy the rnosr scenic tirne along the river and shoreline during the year, nicest rime for canoers "'- "-Needs cleaning ". "Ir seems that more people are using the La Salle River for winter recreation. tuhich may be an area, thar residents near the river can heip to expand Seven of fifieen respondents (47%) indicated that the environmental condition of the La Salle River does affect recreational uses. U'hereas 40% of the respondents indicated that it did not affect recreational uses. The remaining of the respondents (13%) were unsure. 7.2.1 (6) Environmental Conservation The rnajority of respondents (65%) agree that more environmentai conservation efforts are needed- Whereas 35% of the respondents remained neutral- If you agree, what actions do you feel could be taken to preserve and protect Stream and river flows? "Clean our the river, including a mainrenance program for deadfaall and Dutch elm diseme- Re-plant areas where rltere are no rrees lep on the n-verbanh "- "Monitor and test the water every yearP'- "Muybe increased waterflow wodd heip elirninate the stagnant eflect that seems to be common dunng the sunzmer ". "More policing of the river''. "Put a stop to those rvho are polluting the warer ". "Keep a stea~.flowof water as ruas kept since 1984"- "Enhance recreational use by purring addirional structures in place since pumping wouldn 't help much "- - - -- - A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr Chaprer 7: Water L/Sagu ''Raise the Idof the dam" "Chernical run-ofland INestock manure: in 2993 we had manure and smm corne dowm the river, fifl width and ar Ieast 800 yarcis long, ipersomflysrood on this and estirnated thar ir wa~about thee inches tlzick Thar to me required mm2 conservarion egons'- 'Lirnit fivestock operation, develop RM of McDonald policies to Iimit I&estock The province mebe Iess szrïrigenr. Well water i3 a concern'*- 'Y would fike to see o pogrom estubfished to clean up some of the deadfail during the wtinter*' 7.2.1 (7) Project Monitoring Of the eleven respondents that Lived in the area prior to diversion construction, only one respondent participated in a nwey questionnaire that was part of the Hildebrandt-Yoq Study conducted in 198 1- AU respondents indicated that they were not hvolved in any monitoring pro-gams after the diversion project was completed in 1984. Half of the respondents (50%) indicated that they would be interested to participate in a monitoring proteram, 7.2.2 ELM lUVER RESPONDENTS As indicated in Table 7.L, a total of 6 people responded to the Elm River survey questionnaire @oth water licensees and non-licensees) (see Appendix 3 for a detailed breakdown of responses for each question). 7 (1) Background Information Type of Respondent The majority of the respondents in the area are land owners/operators. However, one respondent belonged to a Hutterite colony. People have lived andlor operated at their indicated location ranging anywhere 60x116 to 68 years. Half of the respondents have lived and/or operated at this location prior to construction of the diversion project in 1984. As such, responses from people living dong the Elm River should not be Mewed as "snap judgements", but rather as observable conclusions. A Post-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Pmject 137 Fann Operation The majority of respondents desmibed their site location as a farm, being their sole source of incorne. Most respondents indicated that potatoes were grown on their fm operation, foliowed by cereal grains, oilseeds, and fit, AU respondents indicated a two to three year crop rotation. Two respondents indicated livestock as being part of their fanning operation. However, compared to the La Salle River responses, the quaatity of livestock was reportedly greater dong the EhRiver, suggesiuig a potentially greater impact to the river. Again, fbrther studies would have to be conducted in order to assess the relative importance of livestock to this area and any impacts to the local environment. 7.2.2. (2) Water Usage Five respondents indicated that their main use of river water is for field irrigation- Al1 respondents indicated that no water is hauled in. WeU water is used mainly for domestic consumption, however it is also a source of water for livestock watering, garden irrigation, and lawn watering. Off-Stream Storage Sites NI respondents indicated that they do not pump water fkom the Elm River to an off- Stream storage site. Irrîsated Crops The total number of imgated crops in 1999 was estirnated at 891 hectares (1960 acres) fiom the six respondents. They indicated that crops such as potatoes and berries were grown- These people were asked also to provide the vohe of water applied to their crops in 1999 (see Appendix 3). However, the majority of them stated that there was a considerable variation in their irrigation water requirernents from year to year. A Posf-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La WleRiver Diversion Project 138 Water Use (other than field crops) Zero respondents indicated water uses 0th- than crop irrigation. 7.2.2. (3) Water Supply Three of four respondents who used river water in 1999 indicated that they received enou_& water fiom the river al1 year. However, one respondent indicated that they did not receive an adequate supply of water during the months of July and August. Comments "Purnps shut down due to elecrncal stonns. Puntps are hardlv big enough dun-ng the montlis of Ju- and Augusr to cover in-igation needs (no amount of resere va ter extra) "- Aise, two of three respondents who used weil water in 1999 indicated that they do have a sufficient suppiy of water fkom their weiis. However one respondent indicated that they are without a sufficient water suppiy during periods when there is a Iow water table. Future Irrigation Expansion Five of six respondents (83%) indicated that they intend on expanding their existing operation within the next five years. h total, respondents predicted that approximately 455 additional hectares (1000 acres) is anticipated to be irrïgated witb the next five years. The rnajority of respondents (80%) indicated that their water source for irrigation wouid be £Yom the Elm River, Groundwater was mentioned as another source. The type of crops indicated included potatoes and potato research. Irrigation equipment anticipated to be used would be either the travelling gun or the pivot. -4 Posr-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La SufZe River Diversion Project Chapter 7: Kzrer 0,Sage 7.2.2. (4) Water Quality Water Quaiity Cornparison People who lived or worked in the Elm P~verBasin area since at least 1983 were asked to rate the quality of the curent water as compared to the original water quality prior to construction of the Diversion Project in 1984. Two of the three respondents felt that the water quality of the El.River improved ("much better") since the development of the diversion project in 1984 whereas the remaining respondent indicated that îhe water quality remained the same. One respondent indicated that the quality of the well water had improved whereas, the other respondent felt that the water had remained the sarne. Comments frorn respondents who felt conditions improved since 1984: "Due to more warer" "There ivater in the Elm River al1 the tirne now, previous to the diversion. Isomerimes had to inigare fiom pori2ols''- Diversion Impacts Since the construction of the diversion project in 1984, there has been very little documentation of impacts that could have occumed as a direct or indirect result of the diversion project. People were asked if they felt that the diversion had any positive impacts on fish, wiIdIife, vegetation, soils, social (e.g. recreation, etc.), economic, or other areas- Responses were diverse covering all areas of impact except for fish, soils, and social issues with an emphasis on wildlife a~deconomic issues. Positive impacts noted: "Increase in crop yieldr and qualie " "The dependable suppiy of rvater amacts an abundance of wiIdI$e, especiaZZy birds. AZso, since the diversion was comtructed. high vafuejkirand vegetable produce /tas increased". "Made land more consistenriyproductive. betrer crops ". "The increasedflow is improving the river overalf ". Four of £iverespondents indicated no negative impacts that they were aware of as a result of the diversion project. However, one respondent commented that "a fau usersfigzrre rhar thejt should keep everybody away but thernselves *'. A Pust-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-lÀ Salle River Diversion Project 140 Chapter 7: Water Usage Water Quaiity Rating; Five respondents rated the overall river water quality average or better than average. There were no major concerns in terms of poor water quality characteristics. In terms of well water quality, three of four respondents rated the overall water quality of wells "above average", whereas one rapondent rated the water quality as "poor". When asked to describe water quality characteristics, two respondents indicated hardneçs as a quality problem. One respondent ùidicated that well water was poor in quaiity ail the time, whereas another respondent indicated fa11 and winter months. Concerus with water quality: " Well rvaïer quality was a problem long before the diversion was conshucted "Keep the Assiniboine River wa ferqualig good and there will be no probfems"- Ways of correcting the situation(s)? "Well water quai& can be improved wirh an iron merand semer Y 7.2.2 (5) Recreation None of the respondents indicated using the Elm River for recreational purposes. 7.2.2 (6) Environmental Conservation One of two respondents agree that more environmental conservation efforts are needed, whereas the other respondent rernained neutrai- A Posr-Hoc -4ssessment of the Assiniboine-La Solle River Diversion Projecf 14 1 If you agree, what actions do you feel couid be taken to presewe and protect stream and river flows? "Efforts should be made to reclaim the ripanan zone- iigngncuhraIacti~ity takesplace nght up to the stream bank Forages or rrees shouid beplanted to reclaim a&leasr 75-100 feet of the nparian zone. "Stoppeoplefiom dumping their garbage into the rivers, especiaIly old cooksfoves.etc-" "it seems 0.K ut present'*- 7.2.2 (7)Project Monitoring None of the respondents were involveci at any point in the planning stages of the project prior to construction. Also, no respondents participated in any monito~gprograms after cornpletion of the diversion project- 7.3 INTERVIEWS UlTH MAJOR WATER USERS 7.3.1 GOLF COURSES Golf courses are ofien constructed in close proximity to strearns or rivers for aesthetic reasons and to meet Ungation requirements. There are two golf courses situated dong the La Salle Riv- namely the "Kingswood Golfand Country Club" ad"Bndges Golf Cozrrse ''- The Kingswood Golf and Country Club is Iocatea just outside the town of La Salle and has been in operotion since 1988. The course is 18 holes covering an area of approximately 220 acres. Whereas, the Bridges golf course is Iocated 1.5 miles East of Starbuck, opening in August, 2000. The course is 18 holes covenng an area of approximately 2 15 acres. Information was gathered on imgation practices, water withdrawal rates, and possible hmeexpansion from participating operators from the two golf courses, A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project 142 Chapter 7: fider Usage 7.3-1 (1) Water Quantity The Kingswood Golf Club is lisenced to withdrawal 175 damYyr at a rate of 0.063 cms of water directly fiom the La Salle River for irrigation purposes. Total irrigated area was 50 hectares (1 10 acres) in 1999 with a maximum aiiowable irrigated hectares of 127 hectares (280 acres) under the license. In 1999, irrigation commenced on April 28" continuing on a daïly basis untii October 19". The average number of hours of imgation per water application in 1999 was approximately 13 hours (covering the total 50 hectares or 1 10 acres per application). The amount of water applied monthly (in inches) in 1999 is indicated in Table 7.3 - Bridges Golf Course is also lisenced to withdrawal 175 dam3/yr. at a rate of 0.063 cms. of water directly ftom the La Salle River for irrigation purposes. Total imgated area was 48 hectares (105 acres) in 1999 with a maximum allowable imgated 73 hectares (160 acres) under the license. The water is initially held in an off-stream storage site (dugout) prior to irrigation. A pumping system is utilised to draw water fkom the dugout (which was topped up approximately five tirnes in 1999). During 1999, irrigation commenced on June 11 on a semi-daily bais until October 2 (70 days in total which varied with rainfall). The average number of hours of irrigation per water application in 1999 was approximately six hours (covering a total of 24 hectares or 52.5 acres per application). The arnount of water applied monthly (in inches) in 1999 is indicated in Table 73. Both golf courses currently receive enough water fkom the rivers during al1 required months of the year for their irrigation needs. The Kingswood Golf and Country Club indicated that over the past 12 years of operahon, the river water level was quite consistent for the needs of the golf course operation. However, the operator fiom the Kingswood Golf indicated a noticeable increase in algae in the river adjacent to the golf course in the past four years, A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project 143 Chaprer 7: Fkrer Ohge 7.3-1 (2) Future Expansion The Kingswood Golf and Country Club anticipates Vngation expansion of approximately 23 additional hectares (50 acres) within the next two years. Again, the water source would be directly Eom the La Salle River. Whereas, Bridges Golf Course is not anticipating irrigation expansion within the next five years Table 73. Raw water applied monthly to goifcourses imgated in 1999 fiom the La Salle River. Nuniber Masi Water Applied Monthiy in 1999 Golf of Aiiowa ble (Inches) Course Hectares Hectares Irrigated ïrrigated (1999) June July August Sept. Kingswood 50 127 2-3 3-4 34 3-4 -7 ------ 1. Water appiied was dependent on raall(the numberof inches indicated would on1y be used in drought conditions). 7.3.2 MUNICLPAL WATER SUPPLY The Sanford Water Treatment plant is located at the town of Sanford, beghing operation in the spring of 1989 (Figure 7.1). Pnor to diversion construction, the operator of the treatment plant participated in a survey conducted by the Hildebrandt-Young Study in 198 1. However, since construction of the diversion project in 1984, the treatment plant has not been involved in any monito~gprograms related to the diversion project. A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 144 Chapter 7: Water Usage Figure 7.1 Municipal Water Treatment Plant located in Sanford, RM of MacDonald (Water Resources Branch, 1996)- Based on the information gathered trom the plant operator, the facif ity withdraws water directly fkom the La Salle River which is metered before it enters the plant and afier it has been treated. Of the total volume of water used within the treatment plant, approximately one-third of the treated water is accounted for "in-plant" treatment losses. The treatment plant process involves a coal lime soda ash process. The plant provides treated water via a large pipeline service to the RM of McDonaid (Sanford, La Salle, Domain, Brunkild, Starbuck, and Oakbluff). A smalier pipeline distributes treated water to local faniers outside the mentioned towns. The treatment plant aiso provides treated water to the Rh4 of Cartier, Richot, Grey, and Morris (bordering areas). 7.3.2 (1) Water Quantity Total consumption of raw river vrater by the RM of McDonald in 1999 was 490,287 m3. River water used by the plant is at its peak demand during îhe months of J- July, and A Posr-Noc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La &11e River Diversion Project 145 Aupst andior anytime there is a dry period. (see Figure 7.2). On average, the peak days include Monday, Tuesday, Saturday, and Sunday. Also, in general, momings (6:OOam- 8:00am) and evenings (5:OOpm-7:OOpm) are peak demand perïods. The treatment plant currently receives a sufficient water supply fiom the nver to meet monthly and daily JFMAMIJASOND MONTH (1999) Figure 7.2 1999 monthly raw river water consumption hmthe Sanford Water Treatrnent Plant sehg the RM of McDondd (Sanford Treannent Plant, 2000). water demands. Total raw nver water consumption by the treatment plant has almost doubled fiom 252,945 m3 in 1993 to 490,156 m3 in 2000 (see Figure 7.3). A breakdown of water consumed by each town served by the treatrnent plant between 1993 & 2000 is shown in Figure 7.4. In general, al1 towns (except Brunkïld and Oakbluff) displayed an increasing trend in water consumption between 1993 and 2000. The towns of Sanford and La Salle are by far the largest consumers of water. Sanford displayed a large increase in water consumption between 1997 and 1999 which is likely attributed to urbm sprawl fiom Winnipeg. A Post-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 146 RM of M acDonild Total Raw Water Consumption (1993-2000) Figure 7.3 Total raw water consumption fiom the La Salie River by the Sanford water treatment plant between 1993 and 2000 (Grabowski, 200 1)- RM of M acDonald Water Consumption -Sanford Domain s-La Salle -0akbluff Starbuck O I i 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 YEAR Figure 7.4 A breakdown of water consumption of six towns sem-ced by the Sanford water treatment plant between 1993 and 2000 (Grabowski, 200 1). A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Projecf 147 Chapter 7: Fater Usage 73.2 (2) Water Quality nie quality of the water is poor between the months of January to Apnl. Dux5ng these months, the river water becornes septic (anaerobic, 1ow dissolved oxygen levels) with odour and taste problerns. To account for the poor quality during this time perïod, water is withdrawn f?om a raw water storage site. The storage pond holds approximately 3 18'220 m3 (70 million gallons) which is full by January- The facility operates under the provincial regdatory requirements and associateci procedures related to operafing a public water supply. Chlo~eresidual testing and bacteriological water sampling are incorporatecl in these regulations since water which is used for domestic purposes must be fkee fiom disease producing organisms. However the occasional outbreak of waterborne diseases indicates the continu4 need to maintain bacterio1ogica.l surveiIlance prograrns on the municipality's drinking water supplies. Many organisms which cause disease in humans origïnate fiom sewage or human excrement. Thus, the better the quality of the raw river water fiom the La Salle River, the reduced chance of contaminated drinking water. 7.3.2 (3) Future Expansion Currently, there is no anticipation of expanding the treatment plant further within the next five years. However, it is unknown whether expansion wfll take place over the longer term. In the past, expansion of the treatment plant took place in 1995 as the growth of the system exceeded expectations, with nearly 3,000 people served of the 4,000 residents in the RM (based on the 199 1 population census). The expansion accommodated additional pipeline extensions to more sparsely populated areas of the RM. This allowed for additional growth in their urban areas, and to permit supply of potable water to several contiguous rnunicipalities. - - -- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 7.3.3 SEWAGE LAGOON DISCEtARGE Municipal sewage lagoon operation is regulated mder the Manitoba Environment Act. As previously mentioned in Chapter four, there are seven rnunicipd lagoons (listed in Table 7.4) which are licensed to discharge effluent into the La Salle River and Elm River- However, OakbluEand Domain sewage effluent runs through a municipal drain prior to discharge into the La Salle River. 7.3.3 (1) Water Quantity Typically, effluent fiom the rnentioned lagoons is discharged twice per year, in the fd and spring (May/June and October). River flow rates are typically higher in Apnl which would assist in assimilation, however effluent is discharged in May/June to stay within guideline level requirements for fecal colifonn counts. As well, Starbuck and Elie lagoon discharge, upstream fkom the Sanford Water Treatment Plant, is CO-ordinatedwith the plant's water withdrawal fiom the river. The treatrnent pIant ensures that its raw water holding ponds are full prior to sewage effluent discharge upstream. A Post-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 149 Table 7.4 A summaq of sewage lagoons, theu municipality, receiving waters, dowable discharge penod. and estimateci volume of discharge in 1999, Estinuted Volume of Discharge in 1999 (million gdlons) i La Salle RM of La Salie River May 15 - October 3 1 May: 1-25 McDonald Octobe~1.54 Sdard RM of La Saiie River Iune 15 - October 3 1 June: 126 McDonald October: 1.04 Starbuck RM of La Saiie River Iune 15 - October 3 1 June: 0.54 McDonald October: 0.50 Oakbluff RM of La Salie River May 15 - October 3 1 May: 1-26 McDonaid Domain' RM of La Salie River June I5 - October 3 1 June: 0.24 McDonald Oakviik RM of Portage la Elm River May 15 - October3 1 July: 1.20 1 Prairie Eliek Rh4 of Camer La Salie River May 15 - Oçtober 3 1 1. This sewage lagoon discharges approximately once every second year, thus ciid not discharge in 1999 (1998 dam used), 7.3.3 (2) Water Quality Sewage effluent is measured for various water quaiity parameters prior to discharge as indicated under the Environment Act, Guidelines are specified for biologicai oxygen demand (BOD), fecd coliforms, and total coliforms (see Table 7.5). Sewage effluent is sometimes chiorinated prior to discharge depending on coliforrn levels. Table 7.5. Manitoba Environment guidelines for sewage lagoon emuent discharge. Water Quality Parameter hfE GuideLine Biological Oxygen Demand <30 mg/L Fecal Coliforms <2gi) per l0om1 A Posr-Hoc Assasnzenr of the Assiniboine-La Skile River Diversion Project 150 As indicated by operators, lagoons situated dong the La Salle River (Le- La Salle, Starbuck, and Sanfiord lagoons) have CO-ordinatedthe tirne of effluent discharge. There is usually a ten day delay perîod after discharge of one lagoon before another lagoon discharges The Elie Iagoon does not CO-ordinate discharge release with lagoons downstream, however the operator does contact other lagoon operators when necessary. As well, the Oakville lagoon which discharges into the EhRiver is not CO-ordinated uith lagoons along the La Salle River downstreaxn, 7.3.3 (3) Future Expansion None of the sewage lagoon operations intend on expanding in the next five years. However, the La Sdelagoon is anticipating expansion sometime after the next five years with available land set aside if needed (113 additional area). As well, the Elie lagoon recently expanded in 1999, combinùig the prïmary and secondary cells and adding a new secondary ce11 to accommodate increased sewage treatment- 7.4 HURIAN SETTLEMENT Early human settlement in the prairie region occurred dong watercourses to provide a secure source of water for domestic, irrigation, and agricultural needs. These settlements were also close to fertile soi1 and highiy productive fanning land. Over tirne, as population grew along these waterways, so did their demand for water. This situation is undoubtedly having an impact along the €lm and La Salle Rivers. 7.4.1 POPULATION STATISTICS Census data was gathered to identie population changes in the La Salle River Watershed between 1971 and 1996 covenng the Rural Municipalities of Richot, MacDonald, Cartier, A Post-Hoc -&sessrnent of the Assin iboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Chaprer 7: Water Li'sage Grey, and Portage (Table 7.6). Not surprisingly, both the RM of Richot and MacDonald have noticeably increased in population since the eariy 70's which can be attributed to urban sprawl &om the City of Winnipeg. Of particda. interest is the RM of MacDonald, which grew significantly in population der the irnplementation of the Assùu'boine-La Salle River Diversion in 1984 (see Figure 7.5). Between 1971 and 198 1, the rate of population growth was 7.4%. Whereas between 1986 and 1996, the growth rate was significantly higher at 37,0%. This population increase is iike1y Iinked to the construction of the municipal water treatment plant in Sdord in 1989- Expansion of water pipelines is continuing on an on-gouig basis to supply new growth areas in the municipality as weU as neighbo~gmunicipalities. It will be interesting to see what the 200 1 population statistics are for the RM of MacDonald. Table 7.6 Population data for the Rurai Municipallties of Richot, MacDonald, Cartier, Portage, and Grey (Statistics Canada, Census 1971-1996)- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Pmject 152 Chaprer /',- Wuzer Usage Population Trend for the RM of MacDonald Figure 7.5 Population rrend for the RM of MacDonaid based on 1971-1996 Census data (Statisucs Canada, 1971-1996). 7.4.2 LIVESTOCK RUN-OFF As fmstead senlements occurred dong the La Salle and Elm Rivers, their proximiw to environmenrally sensitive areas have undoubtedly had an impact on aquatic and wildiife habitat over the. Livestock feedlots and wintering areas are conhibuting nui-off water to these rivers as well as destruction to nparian habitat due to extensive cattle g-g- Land spreading can occur right up to the nvers even though a buffer zone should be in place and practised (which is not monitored). Operations with less than 400 animal units are not prevented from winter spreading which is detrimental d-g spring run-off. Also, livestock operations located 2 to 3 miles from the rivers can also have an impact on the watenvay, since manure applications can be spread on land as far as the operator wants to haul it. However, most operators find that it is not economicdly feasïble to go further than a few miles (R. Cenerini, pers-corn). A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr ofrhe Assiniboine-Lz &/le River Diversion Pmject 153 It is very difficult to determine the total number and location of Ilvestock operations dong the Ehand La Salle River since only operations greater than 400 animal units are required to obtain a permit issued by the rurai municipality- However, livestock operations are more intensive in the upper reaches of the La Salle Watershed just East of Portage la Prairie (R-Cenerini, pers. corn). Inadequate monitoring of current livestock operations makes it difficult to adequately assess the water quality effects of large livestock operations, The Livestock Stewardship Pane!, 2000 has indicated that water quaiity monitoring must greatly increase to provide an assessrnent of the impact of livestock production on soi1 and water. A critical constraint to achieving this is the inadequate level of staffing for monitoring. However, the Livestock Stewardship Panel has recommended that "a monitoring system with sufficient detail to provide a water quality impact record of individual barns and groups is required to give Manitobans a mesure of the impact of intensive livestock operations on water". The following summary of findings includes a discussion of water usage, water supply, water quaIity, impacts fiom the diversion project, and suggested conservation efforts. Major findings and conclusions will be discussed fürther in Chapter 8- 7.5.1 Current Water Usage Current water use activities identified by survey respondents dong the La Salle and Elm River are summarised in Table 7.7. Since there was less than a 100% response rate, the list of activities may not be complete. A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 154 Chapter 7: Warer Ukge Prior to diversion construction, water was hauled in for domestic consumption due to water shortages. However, survey respondents indicated that water is no longer hauled in for these purposes primady due to the construction of the Sdord Water Treatment Plant* Table 7.7, Current water use activities identified by survey respondents dong the La Salle River and Eh River, WATER La Salie River Weil Water dottg USES the La Salie River 1 1 River Domestic 1 Household, Iawn, 1 Household, lawn, None Household, lawn, gardening, and livestock garden, greenhouse, garden, and wate~g and iivestock livestock watering waterhg Municipal Sanford Treatment Plant Nia Agricultural Field Spraying, washing Noue Field Spraying fann equipment Industrial N/a Nia * trrigation Fieid irrigation, golf None WIField irrigation course irrigation Recreational Ice skating, snowmobüng, Nia None Indicated cross country skung, caneing, fishing, and boatïng -7-7 Imgators are one of the largest consumers of water along the La Salle and Elm Rivers. The total area irrigated in 1999 within the La Salle River Basin was estimated at 1 154 hectares (2539 acres) as indicated by the 21 respondents in the survey. Comparatively, the survey conducted in 198 1 identified a total of 1440 acres of crop area imgated within the La Salle River Basin (15 respondents). It is very difficult to make accurate cornparisons of imgated acres between 198 1 and 1999 due to inconsistent data collection amongst rivers within the La Salle River Basin (see Table 7.8) (Note: Irrigation data collected from Gaia Codting 1999 report did not break down imgation along each river and included additional nvers outside the La Salle Watershed, thus was not used). A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent ofthe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecl 155 Chapter 7: Water kzge Table 7.8 Irrigation &ta coUected hmvarious surveys between 198 1 to L999 (ùngated hectares). Prcedictcb Water Source 1981' Eiplduif . --199l2- 1994' - U)93 Es- Diverdon - - - (nta &e l~biint-- . .- ml3 La Salle River 219 600 260 19 1 EhRiver 326 325 891 1 455 Mill Creek 1 348 345 Tora1 1 655 1 530 i 892 1270 1 1. Hiidebrandc-Young S tudy, 1983 (breakdown of irrigation dong each river was not gîven) 2. Gaia Consulting Irrigation Survey, 1995 3. Data coUected hmthis survey which is underestiinated since survey did not cover ali water users in the area (also Mill Creek was excluded hmthe study since there was no lïcensed water usage dong the creek) 7.5.2 Adequate Water Supply The La Salle River Basin received moderate precipitation levels during 1999. As such, the majority of respondents dong the La Salle River indicated that the supply of river water met thek water use needs for 1999. Also, well water supplies were adequate. Along the Elm River, the major@ of respondents indicated an adequate supply of water in 1999 for their water needs. However, one respondent reporteci a shortage of water during the months of July and August Also, it was mentioned that there was a lack of sufficient well water supply during low water table periods. 7.53 Adequate Water Quality The majority of respondents felt that the overall water quality along the La Salle River has improved since construction of the diversion. However, there is some concem that water diverted to the La Salle River fkom the Assiniboine River is of poor quality. Respondents indicated that the La Salle River water was poor during high water levels, summer and winter months. Specific water quality concems included cloudiness, odour, colour, taste, algd growth, and hardness. -4 Post-Hoc Assasment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Divemion Project There was mked response in tenns of weli water qualïty aloncg the La Saile River where some felt there was improvement and others felt the qudity declined since diversion development, Respondents indicated that well water was poor al1 times due to colour. odour, taste, cloudiness, hardness, and alkalinity problems. Other major water users dong the La Salle River were, for the most part, satisfied with water quality for their needs- Golf course operators along the La Salle River were satisfied with the river quality for irrigation purposes. The Sdord Water Treatment Plant operator indicated that water quality was poor during the months fkom January to April due to anaerobic conditions and thus has relied on water fiom holding tanks during these months. Sewage lagoon dischargers operate under regulatory requirements within the province to ensure water quality parameters of sewage efnuent fa within Manitoba guidelines. There is coordination of effluent discharge between most lagoon sites, however not dl. Coordination also occurs between lagoon operations upstream fiom the Water Treatment Plant to ensure that that the plant's water holding ponds are full prior to discharge upstream. Most respondents along the EhRiver felt that flow augmentation fiom the diversion project improved overall river water quality, with no major water quality problems reported. Given the few people along the Elm River who responded to weU water quali ty , one indicated improvement w hereas the other indicated no change since project implementation. The majority of respondents rated the overall quality of welI water above average, however, hardness was seen as a problem. 7.5.4 Identified Impacts Respondents indicated both positive and negative impacts dong the La Salle and Elm Rivers due to the diversion project as summarised in Table 7.9. -- - -4 Posr-Hoc Rrsessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Divemion Project Chaprer 7: Warer Usage Table 7-9. Positive and negative impacts noted by survey respondents as a result of the diversion project Impact Parameter Positive Negative Positive + hproved water Increased OveralI 1 \Vater Quaiity quality for pollution improvement irrigation and diverted into in waser recreation the river fiom 4-w + Less algae, not hog operations as stagnant dong the Assiiil'boine River + Increased fish None indicated None indicated None indicated diversiiy and population + Increased 4 Increased Increased None indicated waterfowl and beaver wiidlife predatory birds population populatïons, destroying including trees dong the birds riparian zone Decrease in racwn and clam popuiations None indicated hcreased None indicated Vegetation nuisance weeds in the F river A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-Lu Salle River Diversion Project 158 Table 7.9 (con't) Impact Parameter l Positive Negativc Positive None indicated None mentioned None indicated 4 Increased 4 Ude Noue indicated recreational snowmobiluig activities conditions in including the winter boating, months due to canoeing, fishing continual water flow Increased None indicated + Increasein Economie tourisrn and crop yields business and quality development in + Increase in the area )e.g, high value strawberry farms ihit and and golf courses) vegetable vroduce 7.5.5 Environmental Conservation The majority of respondents dong the La Sde and Elm River agreed that more conservation efforts are needed. Identified environmental concerns and suggested ways of improving the situations are summarised in Table 7.10 & 7.1 1. A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La &Zle River Diversion Projecr 159 Chapter 7: Wbter Usage Table 7.10. Envt-onmental concerns and conservation eEorts as lndicated by respondents dong the La Salle River. Area of Concem Suggcstd COIM~M~~O~ Efforts Excessive sewage lagoon Stricter Regdations discharge Xnto the nver Livestock operations too close Hook an ejector or field into to-the river ' the municipai sewage iine, Increased nutrient loading Limit nutrient loading and fkom flooding and nutrient increase flow during the was ho ff winter and surnmer months, Increase water IeveIs in the summer when aigal gmwth is hieh Hog operation monitoring, Focus more on conservation regulations, and enforcement efforts rather than the nor stringent enough economy Recreation iimitations due to Constnict dams to increase poor water quality water levels, clean the river Loss of riparian zone due to Forages or trees planted to agric&ral activity reclaim the riparian zone Deadfall and Dutch Elm Establish a maintenance and disease monitoring program General ~oliutionof the river More poiicing needed ~unici~aldrinking water Close mo&oring>f raw water qualirY intake Table 7.11, Environmental concerns and conservation efforts as indicated by respondents dong the Eh River. EhRiver Area of Concern Ways of Correcthg the Situation Loss of riparian zone due to Forages or mes planted to agriculrurai activity reclaim the riparian zone Garbage dumping into the Maintenance program to ciean river 1 the river I Based on survey results, the diversion's original purpose of alleviating chronic water shortages was achieved dong the La Salle River for 1999 water demands. Along the Elm A Posr-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 160 Chapter 7: Warer Usage River, it is questionable if water needs were beiog met in 1999 based on swey responses. Results fiom both the survey and water quality andysis indicated that the overall nver water quality has not been at an optimum level for water users dong the La Salle and Elrn Rivers given the water dernand in the area. During the mid-go's, water quality levels along the La Salle River actually worsened cornpared to the mid-70's @ased on CWQI values). Althouph the intention of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project was to alleviate water qudity problems, and in some cases irnprovement was evident, overall water quality remains fair to marginal dong the La Salle &verer Recent water demands have put additional stress on water quality. Increased future water demands will only ma@@ current water quality problems dong the La Salle and Elxn Rivers. Poor water quality has the potentiai to impact all water uses of the La Salle River Watershed including habitat required by aquatic life. These water quality trends are most likely to continue in the future unless human activities change along the river and/or more rigid water management programs and practices are put into place- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Chapfer 8: Conclusiom and Recommenhrions C'TER8: CONCLUSIONS AIM) RECOMMENDATIONS Since construction of the Assini'ioine-La Salle Diversion Project in 1981, there has been no follow-up study to the environmental impact assessment review conducted in 198 1. Also, the available literature reveais that only a few studies were conducted in the area since diversion construction (which were unrelated to the diversion project). The importance of a pst-hoc environmental impact assessment of the diversion project was emphasised by the following: 4 a lack of quantifiable data in the La SdeRiver Watershed before and afier diversion irnplementation; minimal monitoring both before and after diversion implementation; + a lack of research studies wnducted in the area before and after diversion implementation; and + a lack of public involvement derconstniction of the diversion project. This chapter links the importance of conductïng a post-hoc assessrnent with on-going monitoring and provides a broad set of conclusions and recommendations about post environrnental impact assessments. 8.1 CONCLUSIONS 8.1.1 IMPACT PREDICTION The review of literature on water diversions suggests that predicted impacts are commonly not validated through pstenvironrnental impact studies which is in effect, the result of poor environmental assessment planning. Prior to the construction of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion in 1983, the project was subjected to, under A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf 162 Chaprer 8: Conclusions and Recommendatkms provincial legislation, an environmental assessment review by EARP. It was determined by the review agency that a fomal donmental impact assessment was not necessary. Instead, an informal impact assessment was detemineci "satisfactory" and was incorporated into the cost-benefit study entitled "An Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Augrnenting the Flow of Water in the La Salle Basin" prepared by Hildebrandt-Young &: Associates Ltd-in 198 1. The Hildebrandt-Young study concluded that positive environmental impacts for the La Salle River Drainage System were anticipated to be considerable while negative impacts were expected to be Însignificant. The environmental impact assessment used sources of information including reports, meetings with city and govemment officiais, interviews with local residents, and field inspections. However, quantitative data suited to environmental impact assessrnent was generaiiy lacking and set Limitations when predicting impacts of the diversion project. Environmental impact predictions indicated that there would be an improvement in overall water quality, increased wildlife habitat areas, higher deer, beaver, and duck populations, and no upstrearn fish migration or sport fishery development. Increased recreational activity was also predicted. Hydrological impact predictions included modest continuous flow into receiving streams through the summer irrigation season (May-August), minor drainage problems possibly occurring in the Upper La Salle River Watershed. Otherwise, ail other negative hydrological effects in the La SaHe River Basin were expected to be minimal. Economic impact predictions concluded that there would be positive net benefits to be gained when diverting water fiom the Assiniboine River to the La Salle River Basin based on the demand for municipal water supply and irrigation purposes. Social impact predictions included increased aesthetics of the Trappist Monastery Site Restoration and La Bamiere Park, both situated dong the lower reach of the La Salle River. A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-Lu Salle River Diversion Projecr 163 Chapter 8: Conchions and Recornmenda~om 8.1.2 DOCUMENTED IMPACTS SINCE DIVERSION CONTRUCTION Afier reviewing al1 available reports and sçientific literaîure relating to the La Salle River Watershed, it has been concluded that there has been no primary or secondary impacts docurnented since construction of the diversion in 1984. This could be due, in part, to EARP's decision to have the diversion project bypass a forma1 environmental assessment in which mandatory post-operational environmentl studies assessing the predictions of the orïbginal impact assessment would have applied. Mitigation efforts would have also been required as part of the formal process, if needed. However, the few studies that were conducted since diversion implementation reported water quality problems along the La Salle River. These water quality issues were, however, unlikely a direct redt of the diversion project since the majority of water quality probtems studied were dso an issue prior to diversion irnplementation. 8.1.3. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CURRENT IMPACTS 8.1.3 (1) WATER QUALITY An analysis of water quality was conducted to provide a better understanding of water quality in the La Salle River and to better define the causes of water quaiity changes that occurred along the river. The purpose of the analysis was to compare the water quality before and afier project irnplementation to see whether or not improvements occurred and where problems stiil remain. Results fiom the analysis concluded that irnprovements in water quality since diversion implementation occurred at sampling site WQ0068 for total ammonia, total organic A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 164 Chapter 8: Conchsions and Recommendariom carbon, dissoived oxygen, and fecal colifom. However, water quality suffered in tenns of phosphom and turbidity levels which both increased significdy since diversion construction. At sarnpling site WQ0070, improvements occurred after diversion construction for conductivity, nitrate/nitrite, phosphorus, and turbidity. Whereas, total organic carbon and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations increased derconstruction, Overall results fiom the analysis concluded that the La Salle River displayed hi@ levels of phosphorus along the entire system, low oxygen levels Merupstream, higher turbidity, conductivity, and fecal colifomi IeveLs Merdownstream. Severai trace metals and certain pesticides were also detectd downstream. The overall water quality index (CWQI) for the La Salle River was rded for most years during the period 1988- 2000 as "fair". Mso based on the CWQI, water quality conditions during the mid-70's were comparatively better than during the mid-90's. The environmental impact assessrnent conducted by Hildebrandt-Young Ltd. in 1981 predicted that the diversion project would improve the overall water quality of the La Salle River system. However, results from the analysis clearly indicate that water quality problems still remain. Results fiom the survey analysis indicated that the majority of respondents felt that the overall water quality along the La Salie and Elm River improved since diversion construction. However, it is evident that the water users are still exposed to water quality problems along the La Salle River, particularily during high water levels, summer and winter months, Water quality concerns noted by the public included cloudiness, odour, colour, taste, dgaI growth, and hardness. Respondents along the La Salle River ais0 indicated well water quality problems such as colour, odour, taste, cloudiness, hardness, and alkalinity. A Post-Hoc ~4ssessmentof tlze Assiniboine-iu &ile RNer Diversion Project 165 Chclpter 8: Conclusio~~and Recommendarions Al1 other major water use operations including golf courses, sewage lagoons, and the municipal water treatment plant were satisfied with the water quality along the La Salle and Eh Riva. However, as indicated by the water treatment plant operator, water quality conditions were poor during the months îrom January to April due to anaerobic conditions, 8.1.3 (2) WATER QUANTITY Results fkom the survey analysis concluded that the majority of respondents along the La Salle and Elrn Rivers had an adequate supply of river and well water to meet their water use needs for 1999. However, one water user along the Elm River indicated a water shortage i?om the Elm River during the months of July and August in 1999. Another respondent also indicated a shortage of well water during low water table periods dong the Elrn River. As well, survey results concluded that water is no longer hauled in for domestic consumption due to water shortages, as was needed prior to diversion constmction- Based on survey respondents, recreational activities seem to be growhg in popularity along the La Salle River. A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversiorr Project 166 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendarions 8.1.4 EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER DElMANDS ON EXISTING IMPACTS 8.1.4 (1) WATER QUALITY Due to the relationship between water quality and quantity, water quality is directly affected by water supply and demand. Based on results hmboth the water quality analysis and survey andysis, overall river water qudity is not at an optimum levd for water users dong the La Salle and EhRivers given current water dmand. Respondents indicated water quality problems including cloudines, odour, cdour, algal growth, and hardness. Findings fiom the water quality analysis ver@ these observations with reportedly high total suspended solids, turbidity, and salinity (salbity is linked to hardness). During the mid-go's, water quality levels along the La SaUe River actually worsened compared to the mid-70's. AIthough the intention of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project was to alleviate water quality problems, and in some cases improvement was evident, overall water quaiity rernains fair to marginal along the La Salle River. Current water demands have put additional stress on water quality. Increased future water demands will only ma@@ curent water quality problems along the La Salle and Elm Rivers. Poor water quality has the potential to impact ail water uses of the La Salle River Watershed including habitat required by aquatic life. These water quality trends are most lilcely to continue in the future udess human activities change dong the river andor more rigid water management programs and practices are put into place. A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Profict 167 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 -4 (2) WATER QUANTITY When determining what effects cment and existing water demands wil1 have on existing impacts, two assumptions are made. One assumption is that the curent demand along the La Salle and Elm Rivers is based on the maximum allowable withdrawal rates of water rights Iicenses issued by the province. Secondly, it is assumed that over allocation has not taken place and that the La Salle and EhRiver can satis* cment water demands along the river. This is supported by survey respondents who have indicated satisfactory water supply along both rivers- These mentioned assumptions are necessary as it is very diflicdt to determine the actual situation in the field since close monitoring of all water users dong these riva has not been achieved by water resource managers in the past (Manitoba Conservation, 1999). Future irrigation expansion is anticipated within the next five years dong the La Salle and Elm Rivers, Long tenn expansion (>5 years) in the area is unknown, however some water users have indicated that it is likely given current population growth and consumption trends. Whether or not existing water supplies cmsatisfy anticipated fbture water demands rernains highly questionable and depends on how well provincial water authorities can manage these rivers. Given a limited supply of diverted water (maximum total pumping capacity of 1.42 cms), increasing demands would raise concems on competing uses, reduced surface water flow, and overall health of the river system- + Compeîing Uses Water use for the purpose of irrigation is the largest of al1 water uses in Manitoba, including the La Salle River system. As demands increase, and supplies decrease, A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 168 Chupter 8: Gmcfuionsand Recornmendarïons irrigation uses could be in direct codict with long-term municipal needs (which have almost doubIed over the last ten years) for water along the La Salle River system- Reduced Surface Water Flow As demands for water increase along the La Salle River system, so will the water withdrawal rates. This in tum, will duce surface water flow which can lead to increased groundwater intrusion that is highly saline- Reduced surface flows will also reduce the assimilative capacity of the water which is important in breaking down sewage effluent discharged into the rivers. Health of the River Withdrawing excessive water fiom surface water sources can have a negative impact on the overall health of the river system. Fishaies and other aquatic Iife will be effected as well as water quality. The over withdrawal of water will increase the concentration of toxic substances put into the river including pesticides, nutrients, toxic trace metals, fecai coliform bacteria Increased nutrient levels will promote algal growth. As well, b io logical oxygen demand will increase 10 wering dissolved oxygen levels. Anaerobic conditions will be more prevalent during winter months which will hinder water treatment plant processes- A Post-Hoc ,.iSsessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr Chaprer 8: Conclusions and Recomrnendatîons 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Given the hdings of this study, the foilowing recommendations are suggested: 8.2.1 IMPACT MAN-4GEMENT STRATEGY An impact management strategy is recommended for the La Salle River Watershed and shodd include but not be limitai to monitoring of impacts identified in the study, data collection, and community involvement 8.2-1 (1) MONITORING The current Ievel of monitoring dong the La Salle River and tributaries as well as the system for coordinating and reporthg monito~gresults are inadequate to give the public confidence that current water use activities along the systern are environmentaily sustainable. As stated by the Livestock Stewardship Panel in a recent report entitled "Finding Common Growid" (2000) on sustainable livestock development in Manitoba: ",-xutbacks in the 1980's and 90's to both federai and provincial govemment water quality rnonltoring programs have left us in the situation of not being able to adequateiy assess the water qualis. effects of human and animai activity along the rivers"- The implementation of long-term monitoring based on variables that are reliable indices cf environmental change is needed dong the La Salle Rive. EhRiver? and Mill Creek. Specifically, the need for consistent repetitive sampling to statistically defhe the spatial and temporal varïability of measured variables mentioned- -4 Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-Lo Salle River Diversion Project 170 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendanons Problematic point source pollutants identified dong the La Salle River system include channeled nui-off associated with livestock operations, sewage effluent discharge (both municipal and nommunicipal lagoons), and saline groundwater intrusion. In addition, the use of fertilizers and chexnicals by golf wwse operators is not currently monitored. As such, their proximity to environmentally sensitive areas make it probable that they are having an impact on aquatic and wildlife habitat of the La Salie River. RECOMMENDA TION #I: Address safine groundwafer iirtrusion by: + rnonitoeng cunductivizy fevels (between sampfing sites WQ0068-71 wnere objective failtire rates increasefùrther downstream) on a regular basis throughour lare spring. summer, and eu* aummn. in order to determine the rimefi.ame and mechanism by ~vhicti the water qzrality of the La Salle River detenorata under various flou? conditions, + a winter sampling program be initiated on the river ta detemine the time fiame requiued for conductivity bels to increese during zero flurhing periods RECOMMENDA TION a: Reduce fhe risk of chernical and fertiIizer run off from golf courses by: + implernenting an environmental management plan for each golf course that will rnonitor and r-educe chernical and fertifizer me, pmtecting water qua@ for do wnstream users ("Greening your BC Golf Course: A guide to Environmentcd Management': pruduced by Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada.199 7 is arz excellent source), A Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of rhe Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr QUALITY: NON POINT-SOURCE POLLUTANTS Problernahc non-point source pollutants dong the La Salle River include nutrient and chernical loading. The impact of any single farm operation on local water quality may be Iow, but the cumulative impact of many operations draining into different reaches of the La Salle River system could be severe and difficuit to control. mentinput £kom non- point sources are highly variable, intermittent, and difficult to predict, It is much more difficult to determine if they are contri'buting to eutrophication (Williamson, 2000). Sedirnentation is the most significant water quality impact fiom agriculturai practises since sediment causes direct hann to biota and habitats and sediment is a carrier for chernicals and nutnents (Perry and VanderMein, 1996)- Nutrient run-off fiom cropland is a prùnary mechanism potentially responsible for increased eutrophic productivity in the La Salle River system. When erosion rates are lowered, rates of input of most pesticides, herbicides, and nuûients also decline. The application of pesticides and consequently their occurrence in surface water is usually a seasonal phenornenon, becoming more intense in late spring and early surnmer before crops are fùlly establishd. Also, surface water contamination by spring nui-off can also contriiute to groundwater contamination. A Post-Hoc .4ssessment of rhe Assiniboine-La Solle River Diversion Project 172 Chapter 8,- Conclusions und Recommendations RECOMAfEhrD-4TION #3: Reduce nutrients, aiguigrowîh, and rurbriliky fevefs by implernenting Nnproved rnethodr of Ianriscaping to control soil erosion and run-off waret-fi-orn agrimltural areas, especiullv in the upper reaches wheve tiiere is in creused activitv, re-establish ar-ear of ?-@arion vegetatïon along the wazerways to reduce soi1 slumping and erosion implernentprecision farmingpractices to limit the amount of excess chernical fertilizers and rnanure applied to cultivated land Educate and increase awareness of eutrophication in rural areas with an emphasis on the need to change or alter farmingpractices. RECOMiMENDA Tlorv#4= Reduce detected pesticide Itwels by: 4 monitoring the use of pesticides by impiementing a Pest management program to ztsers along the rivers tu reduce the amount of unnecessary spraying ofpesticides + r-eb0ulating new pesticides introduced &ychemical manufacturers, ensuring that th- are also being rnonitored along the rivers, and 4 initiating a study progrom to sample representative forageJsh. aquaric rnacr-ophyte, and bottom sediment on a regtdar busis to rnonitor bio-accumulation in the biota and sedimen t. A Post-Hoc hsessmenr of the Assiniboine-La alle River Diversion Projecr 173 Chapter 8: Conciu~iomand Recomtnen&tiom QC'ANTITY: WATER FLOW Water quality problems have been detected within al1 reaches of the La Salle River which are hïghly influenced by flow levels (Le. dilution and assimilation). RECOMMENDAT'N #S: Alleviate water quality probfems a? identried sites &y: + increasing divertedflow to the La Salle and EZm Rivers during lowflow periods in order to achieve and maintain water quality objecrves 4 monitoring and enforcingpenaltiesfor unauthorized water use 8.2.1 (2) DATA COLLECTION Greater attention is needed for data collection, analysis, synthesis, and substance. This will enhance anaiyiic capabiiity of funue monitoring and improve the understanding of the impacts dong the La Salle River system. RECOMMENDA TION #& Improve the overall quality of the La Salle River Basin &y: re-esrablishing water quality monitoring sites along the La Salle River to defect water- qualiîy pohtants. In 1997, five sampling sites were disconhzied with on- one current$~remaining at site WQ0068. establishing three flow stations (minimum) along the La Salle River fie. upper, central, and lower reaches of the river) to determine the relationship of sheam flow with water quality data This is important as it assists in identlfiing point-source pollutants versus non point-source poUutants based on corelation with stream flow. estabkdiing new water quatihi and flow sites along the Eh River and Mill Creek since there is am-entZy water use activity but no monitoring of water quality orflow. -4 Posr-Hoc Asessnrenl of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 174 Chapter 8: Conchsions and Recomrnendariorrr 8.2.1 (3) COMMUNlTY INVOLVEMENT Increased community involvement in any water project cm: contribute to the success of the decision making process, producing more balanced decisions, promote public confidence, encourage efficiency and the production of policies and decisions that are responsive to the needs of the public, and produce pater accountability by water resources managers due to the threat of review by the public (Lenny, 1976). RECOMMENDATION #7: Increase communiîy involvement by: + developing a community awarenms campai' dealing with point-source and non point-source conraminants in the area since an educared user is less likei'y to abuse the systern if the implications are zr nderstood. ENVIRONMENTAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (ENGOs) The Trappiste LaBarrime Greenspace Group (formally "Frïends of the La Salle") is a riparian stewardship group, formed in 1991 with an overall goal to improve the La Salle River through cleanup, tree planting, and community education. The group has been involved in a number of activities at the community level along the lower reaches of the La Salle River, some of which include various government agencies (see Table 8.1). Recently, the group has been promoting interest along the entire La Salle River system and would like to see the La Salle River rnanaged at the watershed level (Van Roon, pers-comm 200 1). A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 175 Chapter 8: Conc/usion.s and Recommendations Tabie 8-1 Community Ievel involvement dong the iower reaches of the La Salle River (Van Roon. pers. comm 200 1)- I Pictonal Comdor South Forks (Lasalle and Red) Herimge St Xorbert 1992 Inventory to LaBarriere Park ( River Clean-up Program South Forks Green Team 1994-97 1 (rernoval of deadwood 8= (LaSaIle and Red Rivers) to CommufllUfllty garbage) LaBarriere Park Tee Plantïng Program St Norbert Coiiegiate, Green Team & 1994-97 Park LaSaiie School Cornmunjty members Tree Protection of 5000 Portage la Prairie downsmeam Green Team & Province 1995 trees & Water Quality to Elie. Starbuck Sanford, of Manitoba Sampling LaBamere Forest inventory and St Norbwt Forest Nanue Park Green Team, 1995 Report and iaBan-ïere Greenway Sustainable DeVelopment corn-dor sites A to E Innovûtions Fun4 (see study by Iennifer Shay, Heritage St Norbert Isobel WaterdShauna Morgan) Beaver Trapping Program Between the mouth of the Red City Naniralist Br 1999- River and La Barrïere Park Province of Manitoba present Tree PlanMg and Tree St Norbert immersion School Hydro Grant & school 2000 - 2002 Protection Corridor Outdoor St Norbert Immersion School Parents & Students 2000 - 2002 Education Workshops at loca! schools Town of LaSalle University of MB 200 1 "Students for a SustaïnabIe Students Future" Ski/Canoeing club I Lasalle River, LaBarriere 135 Snidents in Club & 2001 - 2003 Park to SNI Parentdreachers Restoration of forest Site A: St Norbert Forest Eco Action Canada. 200 1 -2003 understorey Site B: West of Monastexy ünïversity of Manitoba, 1 "Living Machine. Phase 1 Ruins (City of Wpg. Green Team - Manitoba Riverbank Property) Naturalïsts sponsor 1 Tree Planring St Norbert Arts Centre site SN00 Hydro Grant 8= 1 200 1 - 2003 Future comrnunity activities planned dong the La Salle River include: 1. Cooperative Work with Natwe Conse~ancyof Canada and private stakeholders on Reservoir forest area enhancement, ta11 gras prairie venue installation and corridor land acquisitions for private protection 2. Implementation of fish ladders (lateral with a series of pools upstrearn) starting at LaBarriere Park, then La Salle, Sanford, and contïnuing upstream 3. Ecology Fair and River Stewardship conference on July 1 3, 14, I 5 200 1 at St Norbert Arts Centre A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 176 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recomrnendatïuns 4- Public Meeting and Suxvey sponsored by Manitoba Parks, City of Winnipeg, and St Norbert Arts Centre for Bridge, Parks Development, and Naturd Assets Management in the comdor - Nov- 200 1 (Van Roon, pers- cornm, 200 1)- As well, The International Coalition for Land and Water Stewardship in the Red River Basin (TIC), is an non profit organization that is currently in the process of assishng - RECOMMERIDA TION #& Strengthen andprevent duplication of group efforts by: + Combining the two groups, name& the Trappiste LaBarriere Greenspace Group and the newly foming Stewurdship group (initiated by TiC) 8.2.2 LA SALLE RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Studies that assess the environmental impact of human and agriculturai activities, including domestic sewage, imgation, and livestock production are currently not being chedout on an adequate spatid or time basis (Livestock Panel Report, 2000). In order to irnplement an impact management strategy, a coordinated watershed management plan needs to be developed in order to gather the people, information, resources, and financial support to protect the La Salle River Watershed. 1). Identification of a Project Coordinator Typically, a project coordinator is someone fiom the local area who is famiIiar with the watershed and surrounding issues. The role of the project coordinator is to initiate the watershed management plan through the establishment of a stakeholder and a technical cornmittee (described below). Making sure an effective information flow is established between both committees is one of the main responsibilities of the coordinator. This A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-Lu Salle River Diversion Project Chupter 8: Conclusions and Recomrnendarions ensures that the watershed planning and implementation process continues to move forward. Other duties include chairing watershed meetings invita guest speakers to tak about various aspects of the watershed, An organization (eg- The International Coalition) could join efforts with the project coordinator to assist with activîty pIanning- 2). Stakebolder Committee Identi*g stakeholder groups in the early stages of the planning process will help to ensure long-term cornmitment and success. The stakeholder cornmittee will be the major decision-makers on the watershed plan and will spearhead site-specific project work to protect and enhance the watershed. Stakeholders are shared resource users within the watershed such as landowner associations, producer groups, environmental conservation groups, fish & game associations, municipality and town officiais etc. One or two indiviciuals fiom each stakeholder group should be represented on the committee. 3). Technical Committee The Stakeholder committee needs to be supported by a technical committee to provide them with technicd and legislative information, data interpretation, and expert advise to assist with watershed decisions (e.g. identifj6ng which projects are most effective and efficient). The technical cornmittee should comprise of professionals who are trained in various water-related disciplines such as the MI3 Water Resources Branch, MB Water Quality Management Section, PFRA, MB Agriculture, MB Fisheries Branch, University professors, etc. It is not uncornmon for technicai representatives to be absent fiom some meetings ('hidden" members), however they can still provide assistance when required (a phone cal1 away). The importance of a strong technical committee cannot be overestimated since they are also a source of potential tùnding for projects within the watershed. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-la Salle River Diversion Projecf 178 C'apter8: Conclusions and Recornmeridariom 4). Issues & Concems Once the two committees have been estabfished, issues and concerm sumounding the La Salle River Watershed should be identified. For example, concems may include such things as water quality and quantity, degraded riparian areas, flood prediction and protection, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, reduced recreational opportunities etc. 5). Vision Once all of the issues and concerns have been identified, there must be consensus of an overall vision. The vision assists in narrowing the scope of the watershed project by focusing attention on areas of the watershed that contribute to the greatest problems in the LaSalle River system. From the vision, goals should be developed for the watershed based on restoring and protecting the critical areas. Goals outline the antiàpated funue state of the watershed and are usually broad, sometimes changing based on data gathered in Step 6. This is critical to the overaii planning process since focus can be Iost very easily. The vision will also help pnoritize the concems and subsequent actions within the watershed and is cost-effective by focusing lirnited financial and technical resources to the critical areas to obtain the greatest hprovements for the money investeci- 6). Compiling Data Background and current data is required to assist the committees with decisions on watershed priorities and site specific project work. For example, uiformation on water quality, land-use, fish & wildlife habitat, recreational use, etc. are ofien required in the pIanning process. The rnajority of the background data can be provided by the technical cornmittee. Current data can be gathered by aenal and ground truthing surveys, cornputer GIS modeling, and public surveying to determine priority project sites. A consultant can be hired to compile and document al1 data in a report format (the first watershed project). A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 179 Chaprer 8: Conclusions and Recommendutions 7). Objectives Objectives should be developed for each goal estabfished in Step 5. It is important to note that al1 views from stakeholders must be considered with a consensus reached. As well, objectives should be descniin measurabIe terms and should be acceptable and achievable (Conservation Technology Informaîïon Center, no date). 8). Methods Methods need to be established in order to carry out each objective reached in Step 7. Specifically, mitigation techniques should address site-specific projet work that has been identified dong the river collected mainly fiom aerïal images and ground surveys. Some exarnples include, but are not limited to, the following: + B est Mmagernent Practices: Structural Practices: require construction activities to install Managerial Practices: involves changing the operating procedures at a site + Reviewing and modiwng existing projects, programs, and ordinances (identify opportunities to coordinate with or improve on existing programs) + Designing and implementing education and information activities (identifying target audiences, informing and motiva~gthe public to take action since the rnajority of change to address the sources and causes of pollution in the watershed will be voluntary, rather than be required by law) Management alternatives should be considered to determine the best approach to achieve the objectives. In most cases, the technical cornmittee would assist in ranking the alternatives. A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 180 Chaprer 8: Conc~csionsand Recomrnendarions 9). Results & On-going Monitoring By implementing various mitigation techniques, results may be immediate or take several years to detect change and should be monitored on an on-going basis. MO&OM~is an important part of watershed planning as it can indicate whether or not efforts are successfii and provide a feedback loop for improving project impIernentation. Monitoring shodd be carried out before and afler each project to detect any changes. Recent water management plans implemented in Manitoba identie monitoring as the 'keak" link in the overd process due to limited time and finances (Erickson, pers. comm 2001). However visual inspection is an example of inexpensive monitoring of project results (e-g.observing fish getting by a bfockage area after mitigation, increased presence of fish upstream due to angler reports, new vegetation growth along a ripariaa comdor impacted by cade grazing). Monitoring cm detect whether or not results are satiswng the overall vision of the Watershed Management Plan and should not be overlooked. Since there are many areas to address in an overall watershed management plan (riparian zone, drainage, irrigation, etc), it is advisable to focus on one compnent at a time. Mitigation efforts along the riparian zone is a good piace to start since there can be short tem positive effects on water quality, fish and wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and domestic watering, The watershed management cornmittee can go through the process of listing and priontizïng mitigation projects for the riparian corridor. From the tist, projects that can be carried out without fünding should be completed first. Whereas, projects that require fünding should be assigned to individual stakeholder representatives who can infom their local group to apply for the fimding (which is endorsed by the watershed management cornmittee). This wiil allow an increase in hnded projects. Each year, projects of the list cm be implemented, so that funding can be spread over years. The water management plan should present a complete picture of the watershed, with an action-oriented approach for addressing water issues in the watershed. The plan is designed to give direction, however must be flexible to allow change since it is - - - - -4 Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Chapfer 8: Conclusions and Recommendations stakeholder driven. The formulation of a watershed management plan WUalso infotm and educate basin residents with the knowledge on how to better protect this resource for future generations. An overall scheme of the watershed management pldgprocess, Figure 8.1, designed by the Fisheries Branch, Manitoba Conservation has been implemented successfully on various watersheds in Manitoba, including: J Upper Whitemud Watershed J Bro kenhead River Watershed J Little Saskachewan River Watershed 4 Valley River Watershed (presently in development phase) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS 1 STAKEHOLDER , PR- ,COORDMATOR r ISSLlES AND CONCERNS Figure 8.1 Flow diagram surnrnarizing the basic st-s involved in the watershed management planning process (Fisheries Branch Manitoba Conservation, 200 1)- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf - Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recornmendarions Ultimately, population growth and increased consumption of water will dictate future water demands placed on the La Salle River system. Sustainable development should becorne an integral part of fiiture planning among water resource manages responsible for the La Salle River system- 'The first step toward a sustainable human tunue mut be to break the grip that the growth myth refains on our thinking and instituh'o~~s,Growth-centered devetopment is itseif inherentiy unsustainable, Sustainable development does not depend on ending human progres, ody on abandoning their myth that erroneously equated such proge~s with growth" - David C,Konen, 1994- The distinction between fùture development and future growth should be clearly understood amongst water resource managers. Growth is a quantitative increase in the size of a system whereas development is a qualitative change in its complexity and configuration (Korten, 1994). Therefore, when documents discuss "sustainability" dong with "growth", it becomes an oxymoron since growth cannot be sustained forever due to the Earth's finite canying capacity. Although, an ecologicai system cm develop without growing and thereby be sustainable. If this aspect is taken into considerationt one can define sustainable development as: "human activities conducted in a manner that respects the inû-insic value of the naturd world. the role of the naturai world in human weil-beïng, and the need for humans to live on the income fiom nature's capital rather than on the capital itself' - David C. Korten, 1994. In the past, water resource decision makers tended to focus on resowce constraints rather than sink constraints such as water pollutants. Future sustainable development of the La Salle River Systern is possible, however three things must drarnatically change if this is to be achieved sucessfùlly. First, the value systems that drive human behavior must change dramatically. Secondly, economic systems that are "growth" oriented such as A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 183 Chaprer 8: Conclusions und Recornmendarions abpicultural activiîy, water treatment plant operation, and sewage lagoon dischargers must be replaced by ecological-economic systems that acknowledge the fact that there are naturai limits to our artificial economics. Fuidy, human growth and consumption must stop hcreasing and eventudy decrease- A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 184 Lireramre Cired LITERATURE CITED Adams, H. Inter-Departmental Memo, Subject: La Salie River Water Quality Province of Manitoba. 1982- Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board Assiniboine River Water Supply and Licensing Implications: A Report to the Manitoba Minister for Natural Resources, January, 1995- Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board. Interim Report to the Minister. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Juiy- 1995. Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board- Use and Allocation Workshop. December 13, 1995. Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board. Water Supply Workshop, November 24, 1995. Beadands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker- An Eco1o.w Framework for Environmental Impact Assessrnent in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies. Dalhousie University. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1983. Bodaiy, R,A. and D-M- Rosenberg, Retrospective AnaIysis of Predictions and Actual impacts for the Churchill-hTelsonHydroelectric Development. Northern Manitoba: in Joules in the Water. Edited by Delisle, CEpp221-242. 1990- Brant W, Memo Re: MacDonald Water Supply - La Salle River. Cochrane Group Consulting Firm. 1995. R Posi-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-la &lle River Diversion Projecr 185 Lirerature Cited Brown, G., A- Peterson, RXiuie-Robach, K Smith, and L-Wolfson, Developing a Warershed Management Plan for Water Quality: An Introductory Guide. Millbrock prïnting.Michïgan February 2000 Carnacho, F- and Gian L-Vascotto. Framework for Enhancing the Statisticai Design of Aquatic Environmental Snidies. Environmental Monito~gad Assessment- 17:303-3 14, 199 1- Canada West Foundation. Nature's Lifebe: Prairie and Northern Waters, L982. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). The Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, 1993, Canadian Envkonmental Assessment Research Councfi. A Framework for Effective Monitoring. Minister of Suppiy and Services Canada- 1987, Cenerini, R- Personal Communication. Manitoba Pork Council. 200 1. Conservation Tech. info. Center (CTIC). for Watershed Partnerships. W. Lafayette, IN, Cowan, J. and S. Thenien-Richards. An Agrïcultural Chernical Use Farm Survey of the La Salle River Watershed. 1984. Environmental Protection Se~ce,Environment Canada- 1986- Cunie, R. and D. Williamson. An Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Surface Waters of Manitoba. Canada. Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Environment, 1995. Day, J-C. and F, Quinn. Water Diversion and Export: Learning fiom Canadian Experience. Department of Geo-gaphy Pubiication Series Number 36, University of Waterloo, 1992. A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projeci Lirerature Cired Department of Consumer and Corporaîe AEaüs and Environment, Water Standards and Studies, December 1980, Dick M, Interbasin Transfer of Waterr impacts and research needs for Canada in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Interbasin Tram fer, Canadian Water Resources Association- 198 7. Discussion Paper: Permanent Facilities to Au-ment Stream FIows in the La Salle River Basin, (no date, no author). Dixon J.A, Lee M. Talbot, and Guy J--M, Le Moigne. Dams and the Environment, Considerations in World Bank Projets- World Bank Technical Paper Number 1 10. 1989. Ehrlich, WA-, E.A. Poyser, L,E. Pratt and J. H Ellis, Report of Reconnaissance Soi1 Survey of Winnipeg and Moms Map Sheet Areas, Manitoba Soi1 Survey. Canada Department of Agriculture & Provincial Department of Agriculture and Soils Department, University of Manitoba. Published by the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. No Date. Environment Canada- Water - Nature's Magician- Fact Sheet on Water. Minister of Supply and Services. 1988. Environment Canada. Proceedinps of the Symposium on Interbasin Transfer of Water: Impacts and Research Needs for Canada, National Hydrology Research Centre- Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1987. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-Lu &lle River Diversion Projecr 187 Lirerature Cired Enviromnent Canada & Fisheries and Oceans. Federal Ecoloeical Monitoring Pro,m. Summary Report. April, 1992- Environmental Quality Branch. Water Management Issues and Challenges, Saskachewan. Canada. November 1997, Erikson, M- Personai Communication. Fisheries Branch- 200 1- Feldrnan, D. Water Kesources Management: In search of an Environmental Ethic- Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London- 199 1, Flynn, M. Management Roles and Responsïbilities for Winnipeg's Riparian Stewardship Group. Practicum. Natural Resources Institute. 1998, Gaia Consulting (Geisel, B.)- 1999 Manitoba Irrigation Survey- My,2000. Gardner, 1. .Enyo's and the Manaqement of the Aqatic Enviroment for the Sustainable Development. In Dorcey,A (ed) Perspectives on Sustainable DeveIopment in Water Management Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin- Westwater Research Center, Vancouver. 199 1. Gore, J. and G- Pens, Alternatives in Re-gulated River Management. CRC Press, hc- Boca Raton, FIorida. 1993- Govenunent of Manitoba- Applying Manitoba's Water Policies- 1992- Grabowski, D- Sadord Water Treatment Plant Operator- Personal Communication. 2001 - A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-Lu Salle River Diversion Project 188 Griffi W. Inter-Departmentai Memo, Subjectr Requùements for Irrigation Water Throughout the La Salie Diversion- Province of Manitoba- A@-Water- 1981. Griffin, W. Water Problem in the La Saile River. Memo- October 10th~1979. Guilbaul t R.A., W.D .G ummer, and V-T, Chacko- The Churchill Diversion: Water Quality Changes in the Iower Churchill and Bumtwood Rivers- Water Quality Interpetive Report No- 2, Fisheries and Environment Canada 1979- Gurney S. and A. Hay. La Sde River Watershed Management Project Funding Proposai. Manitoba Environment and The International Coalition for Land and Water Stewardship in the Red River Basin. 1996. Hama, J.E. A Review of the Environmental Assessment, Resource Allocation, and Associated Decision-makinp Processes in Northern Ontario, Canadian Society of Environmental Biologist: Ontario Chapter, for Royal Commission on the Northern Environment- 1983- Healey. M.C. and R.R. Wallace- Canadian Aquatic Resources- Fisheries and Oceans. Canadian Bulletin of Fishenes and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 215. Minister of Supply and Services, 1987. Hildebrandt-Young & Associates Ltd- An Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Au,ementinp the Flow of Water in the La Salle Basin- 198 1. Home, J. and C. Goidman- Limnology- Second Edition. McGraw-Hi11 Inc. New York, USA- 1994. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 189 Lireruwe Cited Houghton, J. Conservation Officer. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources- Personai Communication- 198 1, Hughes, C. Water Quality Assessment of Eight Streams in the West Souris River Conservation District fiom July 1996 Through Apd 1999, Manitoba, Canada Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Conservation- Report fi 99-07- October, 1999, Jeffery, M.1, The New Canadian Environmentai Assessment Act - BiU C-78: A Disappointine Response to Promised Reform- McGa Law Jod36: 107 1-1088- LW 1, Jeffery, M.I. Environmental Approvals in Canada. Butterworths Inc, Toronto, Canada- 1993. Jones, R, Wildlife Biologist. Wildlife Branch, Department of Natural Resources- Personal Communication (fiom Hildebrandt-Young Study), 198 1. Keating, Micheal, To The Last Drop- MacMillan Ltd, Toronto, Canada. 1986, Kerr, J. Reports on Effects of Diversions to Qu'AppeUe River fonn Lake Diefenbaker on Saskachewan River System. Stanley Associates En-ggee~gLtd, Saskatoon, Saskachewan. 1972. Korten D. Conservation Pnnciples for Biodiversity- 1994, Lenny, D. The Case for Findine Citizen Participation in the Administration Process. Administration Law Review. 28:483-5 12, 1976. Leitch, J. and M-Tenamo. Science and Poiicy Interbasin Water Tramfer of Aquatic Biota- Lastihite for the Regional studies,North Dakota Stat University. Fargo,North Dakota. 200 1. A Post-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 190 Lirerature Cired Livestock Stewardship Panel. Sustainable Livestock Development in Manitoba- Findùlp Common Ground- December 2000. Lowman, L- Photo. 1997. MacLaren Plansearch Limited, Limestone Generating Station: Environmental Impact Study. Final Report, 1986. MacLaren, V. W- and J, B-Whitney- New Directions in Environmental hpact Assessment in Canada. Methuen Publications, New York. 1985- Maeitoba Conservation. Development of a Nutrient Management Strategy for Surface Waters in Southern Manitoba- Mormation Bulletin. April20,2000. Manitoba Conservation. Devils Lake Outlet: A Cornpanson of Manitoba and North Dakota Views. Information Bulletin. Aprïl3,2000- Manitoba Department of Natural Resources. Assiniioine to La Salle River Diversion Project- ad. Manitoba Environment, Proposed Water Quality Obiectives Through Manitoba's Watershed Classification Process: Red and Assiniboine Rivers and Their Tributaries Witbin and Downstream for the City of Winnipeg. Technical Document. Prepared by Sharon Gurney, Water Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Division. 199 1. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr Lirerature Cited Manitoba Environment- Proposed Water Quality Obiectives Through Manitoba's Watershed Classification Processr Red and Assinihine Rivers and Theu Tributaries Within and Downstrem of the City of Winnipeg- Summary Document. Prepared by Sharon Gurney, Water Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Division- 199 1- Manitoba Environment. Proposed Water Quality Objectives Through Manitoba's Watershed Classification Process: Red and Assinihine Rivers and Their Tributaries Withia and Downstream of the City of Winnipeg. Appendix A: Water Quality Data Summarv, Prepared by Sharon Gurney, Water Quaiity Management Section, Environmental Management Division, 1991. Manitoba Environment- La Salle River Watershed Management Project Proposal. February, 1996. Manitoba Environment. Manitoba Rural Water Quality Toxic Blue-Green Alpae- Water Quality Factsheet, publication #2. Water Quality Management Section. April 1999. Manitoba Environmental -Assessrnent and Review Agency. Environmentai Assessment and Review Process. Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Environment- 1976 Manitoba Environmental Division. Proposed Classification of Manitoba's Surface Waters. Red River Principal Watershed Division. Draft No. 4, pg 34. 1980- Manitoba Sustainable Deveiopment Act. 1997. Manitoba Water Rights Act. l988. A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf 192 McLean, D. and G. Beckstead- Long TmEffects of an Interbasin Diversion on the Milk River: Proceedings of the Symposium on Interbasin Tmferof Water Impacts and Research Needs for Canada, 1987. McNeely, R, V. Neimanis, and L. Dwyer- Water Quality Sourcebook: A Guide to Water Quaiity Parameters. Environment Canada- Ministet of Supply and Services, Canada. 1979- Mendenhail, W. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. Fourth Edition. Duxbury Press, North Scltuate, Massachusetts- University of Floricla, 1977. Milton, S. Statistical Methods in the Biological and Health Sciences. Second Edition- McGraw- Hill, Inc, United States. 1992. Neumeyer, RN. The Environmental Effects of Canadian Water Diversions: A Literature Survey. Environment Canada, Idand Waters Directorate. Regina, Canada. 1986, Noton, L- and R, Shaw. Winter Water Quaiity In The Athabasca River System - 1988 and 1989- Environmentai Quaiity Monitoring %ranch,Envionmental Assessrnent Division, Enviommental Protection Services, Alberta Environment- 1989 Notz, W. and R. Busam, Study Guide for Moore's The Basic Practice of Statistics. WH. Freeman and Company, New York. 1995- Penner, F- Inter-Departmental Memo, Subject: Assiniboine-La Salle Diversion. Province of Manitoba, Water Resource Branch. 1984. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecr 193 Perry, J- and E. Vanderkleio. Water Quality: Management of a Naturd Resourcec Blackwell Science, hc. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, L 996- Prairie FmRehabilitation Administration, Estory of Irrigation in Western Canada- 1982. Robinson, Gordon- University of Manitoba, Environmental Sciences- Presenîation to the Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board, December 9, 1994. Rosenberg, D.M., H-V, Danks, and DM- Lehmkuhl, Importance of Insects in Environmental impact Assessment- Environmental Management, 1016, pp-773-783- 1986- Rosenberg, D.M., R-A- Bodaly, and P.J. Usher. Environmental and Social Impacts of Large Scde Hydroelectric Development: who is listening? Global Environmental Change. 5:2, pp. 127-148- 1995. Rosenberg D-M-, F-Berkes, R.A. Bodaly, REHecky, CA, Kelly, and J-WM- Rudd. Large- Scale Impacts of Hydroelectric Development. Technicd Document. 1997. Rounds, R and A. MacLean. An Analysis of the Maior Issues in A_griculnual and Municipal Water and Sewage Treatment Lnfrastnicnire in Rural Manitoba- Rural Development hstitute Report Series 1990-4. 1990. Scheilenberg, H, Comments on the Benefits and Scale of the Proposed Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project, Manitoba Abgrïculture, Policy Developrnent Brançh. 1983- A Post-Hoc Assesment of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projeet Serafin, R-,J.G. Nelson, and R W. Butler. Post-hoc Assessrnent in Resources Management and Environmental Planning. University of Waterloo. Hentage Resources Centre and Schml of Urban and Regional Planning, Waterloo, Ontario. No Date, Smith, M. Practicum: Water Management Strategies for the Lower Seine River. University of Manitoba. 1992. Srnithson, Jim (Per Com). Department of Naturai Resources, Water Resources Branch. 1995. Stewart, K- W. Professor, Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba- Specialty: Biogeopphy and Ecology of Native and Introduced Fish Fauna (Devonian Palaeoichthyology). Personal Communication. 200 1 Sweldo, A. and D. Ludwig. LS in the La Salle River Basin. Province of Manitoba, Department of Mines, Resources, md Environmental Management, Water Resources Division. 1977- Taylor,H. International Coalition, Executive Director. Persona1 Cornmunitcation- 200 1 Themen-Richards, S. and W. Williamson. Contamination by Pesticides of the La SaIIe and Assiniboine Rivers, Manitoba, Canada- Environmental Protection, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada. Water Standards and Studies Section, Manitoba Department of Environment and Workplace, Safety and Health. April 1987- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992- Van Roon, L. Member of LaBarriere Trappiste Greenspace Group. Personal Communication. 200 1. -4 Posr-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 195 Lirerature Cited Waite, D. T. Glacial Lake Regina in Southem Saskatchewan and Lake Agissiz in Manitoba: Stretchiny Water Supplies: Alternative Technologies and Strate.gïes. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, University of Regina- 1992. Water Quality Index Technical Subcommittee. The Canadian Water Quality Index 1.O: A Report to the Water Quality Guidelines Task Group of the Canadian CounciI of Ministers of the Environment. March 2000, Water Resources Branch, Manitoba Conservation, Description of Dams Located Along the La Salle River. 1990- Water Resources Branch, Manitoba Consemation- Memo: 'Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project". Septeniber 7, 1982. Water Resources Branch, Manitoba Conservation. Groundwater Availability Study Report NO- -13. Winnipeg Map Sheet 62-H- An ARDA Research Project, March 1980- Water Resources Branch, Photos. 1996. Wathern, P. Environmental Impact Assessment: theory and practice. Routiedge, New York. 1988- Wiens L. The South Saskatchewan-Qu'Appelle Diversion: history and future prospects in Proceedings of the Symposium on Interbasin Transfer of Water: Impacts and Research Needs for Canada- 1987, A Post-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 196 Williamson, DA- A Conductivity Report on the La Salle River, Sanford to La Barrïere Park 1980-81 - Preliminary Report, Manitoba Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Environment, 1980. Williamson, DA- A Preliminary Investigation into the Presence of Agrïcultural Pesticides in the La Salle and Assini'boine Rivers, Manitoba Canada. Water Standards and Studies Report #84-5. Department of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health. Winnipeg, Manitoba- 1984- Wiliamson, DA. Rationale Document Supporthg Revisions to Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives. Water Standards and Studies Section, Department of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health. 198 8 Williamson, D.A. Manitoba Water Quality Standards. Objectives, and Guidelines. Technical Drafi for Review and Comment. Manitoba Conservation Report 200 1-0 1, Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Consensation- February 1,200 1- WilIiamson, Dwight, LcDevelopmentof a Nument Management Strategy for Surface Waters in Southern Manitoba7'. Idormation Bulletin. Water Quality Management Section, Manitoba Conservation. AprilS0,2000. A Post-Hoc Assessmenr of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf 197 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Abatement: Reducing the de- or intensity of, or eliminating pollution (Environmentai Protection Agency. 1998). Agricultural purposes: the use of water at a rate of more than 25,000 litres per day for the production of primary agrïculturai products, but does not include the use of water for irrigation purposes (Manitoba Water Ri-ghtsAct, 1988). Assimilation: the abiliv of a body of water to purify itself of pollutants (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Asshiiative Capacity: the capacity of a natural body of watex to receive wastewater or toxic matenals without deleterious effects and without damage to aguatic life or humans who consume the water (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- Confidence Interval: A range of values in which a parameter is believed to lie within a specified degree of certainty, More specificdly, an interval computed f?om sample data by a method that has a pre specified probabiliv of producing an interval containing the nue value of the parameter (Non & Busam, 1995)- Confidence Leve!: The probabihty statement associated with a confidence interval, The probability that the method we use to produce a confidence interval will yield an interval containing the true value of the parameter (Notz & Busam, 1995). Correlation: A measure of the hear association between two quantitative variables, Correlations range f7om -1 (the data lie exactly on a negatively sloping straight line) to +l (the data lie exactly on a positively sloping straight line) (Notz & Busam, 1995). Degrees of Freedom: The number of observations, n minus 1. It is used when calculathg the variance and standard deviatioa More generally, it represents the number of 'unrelated' numbers used in calculating a quantity (Notz & Busam, 1995)- Diversion: use of part ofa Stream flow as water supply (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- A Post-Hoc Assessrnenr of the Assiniboine-La &/le River Diversion Project 198 Glossan of Tenns Domestic purposes: the use of water, obtained fiom a source other than a municipal or comrnuni~%mer distribution -stem, at a rate of not more than 25,000 lines per day, for household and satÜwpurposes. for the watering of lawns and gardas, and the watering of Iivestock and poultry (Manitoba Water Riats -Act, 1988). Ecological Integrity: the variety of life and its processes, including genetic composition, richness of species, dismbution and abundance of ecosystems and communities, and the processes by which al1 living things interact with one another and with their environment (USFish and Wïidlife Se~ke.1992). Effluent: wastewater (treated or untreated) that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industriai outfdl and genediy refers to wastes discharged into surface waters (Environmentai Protection Agency. 1998)- Environment: The swn of aii extemal conditions affecting the life, development, and survival of an organism (Environmentai Protection Agency, 1998). Environmental Audit: An independent assessrnent of the current starus of a party's compliance with applicable environmental requirements or of a party's environmental compliance policies, practices, and controIs (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- Environmentai Effect: consequence of the hpact (Wathem, 1988). Environmental impact: the change in an environmental parameter, over a specified period and within a defmed area, resulting fiom a parcïcular activity compôred with the situation which would have occwed had the activity not been initiated- Direct @-iman9 impact: occurs as a direct consequence of a particdar activity. indirect (secondad impact: occurs as a result of changes in a chin of environmental parameters. Impacts can also be classified as either naniral or human-induced changes (Wathem, 1988). Environmental impact Assessrnent (EIA): a process for identimg the likely consequences for the biogeophysical environment and socio-economic effects for human's welfare of implementhg particular activities and for conveyhg this information, at a stage when it can materially affect theu decision. to those responsible for sanctionhg the proposais (Wathern, 1988). Environmental Impact Statement: a formal document of the EIA outcome (Wathern, 1988). A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 199 Environmental Non Goverment Organization (ENGO): A goup of citizens who band together to work on environmental conservation and preservation (Gardner, 199 1) Environmental Sustainability: Long term maintenance of ecosystem components and firnctions for future generations (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- Hard Water: aikaline water containing dissoIved saits chat interfere with some indusm-al processes and prevent soap Eom sudsing (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- H,,: the null hypothesis (Notz 8= Busam, 1995)- Ha: alternative hypothesis (Notz & Busam, 1995)- Independent Variable: When knowing the result of one event does not give you any additional information about the probabilîty of another event (Noe % Busarn, 1995). Industrial purposes: the use of water obtained hma source other than a municipal or cornmunity water dismiution system, for the operation of an industriai plat producuig goods or services other than primary a_picultural products, but does not include the sale or barter of water for those purposes or the use of water for recreational purposes (Manitoba Water Riphts -413,1988). Inference: Drawing conclusions about a population fkom information in a sample fiom the population (Noa & Busam, 1995). Instrearn Flow: minimum flow requirements to protect aquatic life and overall "health" of the river (Gurney, 1996)- Integrated Pest Management (IPM): a mixture of chernical and other non-pesticide, methods to control pests (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Interbasin Diversion: the uansfer of water fiom one basin to another (Wiens, 1987) Intrabasin Diversion: the transfer of water within the same basin (Wiens, 1987) A Post-Hoc Assessn~entof the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project Irrigation purposes: the use of water at a rate of more thân 25,000 iitres per day for the aruficia1 application to soi1 to supply moisture essentiai to plant growth (Manitoba Water Riphts Act, 1988). Least-squares regression be: A regression line that minimizes the sum of the vertical distances of the points to the iine (Nob & Busam. 1995)- Linear relationship: Men the relationship between two variabtes can be desrnid weii by a shaight line Wotz gL Busam. 1995)- Logarithmic Normal Distribution: When the logadhm of a set of variate values are dlstnbuted according to the Normai Distri'bution and the variate Is said to have a Logarithmic Normal Distribution- or be distri'buted "lopormaiiy'* Mean: A measure of center, the numencal average, represented as x (No= & Busam, 1995)- Method Detection Limit (MDL): When anaiyzing water quai@ samples, the MDL takes into account technical capabifities, volume of sample processed, varïability of the quality of re-agents, etc which tends to reduce variability more than the instrument detection Limit (DL) (Wiiiiamsou, pers corn, 2000)- Mitigation: measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment (Environmental Protection Azency, 1998). Municipal purposes: the use of water by a municipality or a community for the puxpose of supplying a municipal or community water dismbution system for household and sanimy purposes, for industrial use or uses related to industry. for the watering of streets? walks, paths boulevards, lawns and gardens, for the protection of property, for the flushhg of sewers. and for other purposes usually served by a municipal or community water dismbution system (Manitoba Water Rights Act, i988). National Water Quality Guidelines: guidelines developed jointly by al1 provincial, temtorial- and federal govemments in Canada (Williamson, pers.com. 2000)- Non-Point Source Discharges: those activities that conm'bute poliutants only during nui-off events, thus are dependent upon rainfall (e.~.loss to a Stream of phosphorus hmcultivated lands) (Williamson et al, 1993). -- - - A Posr-Hoc Assessrnent of the ,.issiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Projecf Xormal distribution: a class of density curves that ail have a symmemc, bell-shaped curve. Each has the same general shape and is defined by its mean and standard deviarion, Nul1 hypothesis, H,,: The hypothesis that States there is no effec~on. chance is at work (Nom B; Busam- 1995). Parameter: a variable, measuable property whose value is a determinant of the characteristics of a system Point Source Discharges: a stationary locaüon or ked îàcility fiom which poiiutants are discharged that have the potential to affect water quaiity independent of r~~l-offevents (e-g, discharges of treated sewage and direct watering of livestock withm a stream) (Wifiarnson et al, 1993). Post-hoc Impact Assessment: desijped for a specific purpose or msk and once it has studied and reported on the matter, it stands disbanded (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Studies that strive to improve current and hture practice in resource management and environmental phnning by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of previous efforts to contend with environment change and economic development (Serafin, et al, no date). Potable water supply: water that is safe for drlnking and cooking (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Regression line: a straight hethat descnies how a response variable changes as the explanatory variable changes (Nom tk Busam, 1995)- Remediation: long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or threat of a release of hazardous substances that is senous but not an immediate threat to public health (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Residual: the distance fiom the regression line of "best fit". As such, al1 of the residuals (numerical values - and -) will add up to O. Riparian Habitat: areas adjacent to rivers and streams with a diffe~gdensity, diversity, and productivity of plant and anünal species relative to nearby lands (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- River Basin: the land area drained by a river and its triiutaries (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). -4 Post-Hoc Asessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project Salini~:the percentqe of salt in the mer(Enviromenrai Protection Agency, 1998)- Sait water intrusion: the invasion of fksh SUïfâce or goundwater by sdt water (EnvironmenmI Protection Agency, 1998)- Salts: minerais that water picks up as it passes over and under the ground (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- Significance bel: A fixed probability that the P-value must be smaiier than in order to deciare the dam statistically significant How untikely the data must be under the nuii hypothesis before we are wfig to amibute the results to an effect other than chance (Nom A: Busam, 1995)- SIope: The amount y changes when x mcreases by 1 (Notz & Busam, 1995). Standard deviation: A measure of spread based on the mean that tek how far the observations are f?om the mean on average (Noa & Busam, 1995)- Standard normal distribution: a specific normal dismiution with mean = O and standard deviation = 1- Any normal dismbution can be stafldardued and becorne standard normal (Notz & Busam, 1995)- Statistical significance: when an effect is too large to be reasonable attniuted to chance (Noa & Busam, 1995). Stewardship: Volunmy positive actions taken by an individual or group to preserve. conserve. and enhauce a natural area for the fiture (Flynn, 1998)- Sustainable Development: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of fûture generations to meet theu own needs (Bnmtland Report. 1987) T distribution: the family of dismiutions of the t statistic, each memberdefined by its degrees of fieedom (Notz &: Busam, 1995). Test statistic: a number used to measure the clifference between what we observe in sample data and what we would expect to see if the nul1 hypothesis wre me(Nom & Busam, 1995)- A Post-rioc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-& &/le River Diversion Project 203 Tributary : Stream or river that feeds into larger systems (Dobson and Beck 1999) Trends: a pattern in a plot usually over time (Noe & Busam, 1995). Type 1 error: when H, is rejected but it is true (Notz & Busam, 1995). Type II error: when H, is accepted but is false CH, is true) (Notz & Bus-, 1995)- Variable: any characteristic of an individual- Variables can have different values for different individuais Wotz 8r Busam, 1995). Wastewater: the spent or used water from a home, commm*ty, farm, or industry that contaias dissolved or suspended matter (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)- Water pollution: the presence of water of enough hardiil or objectionable material to damage the water's quality (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Water treatment iagoon: an impound for liquid wastes designed to accomplish some degree of biochemical treatment (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Watershed: the land area that drains into a Stream; the watershed for a major river may encornpass a number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine at a common point (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Also caiied a draining basin ( Dobson and Beck, 1999) Water weîl: an excavation where the intended use if for location, acquisition, development, or artificial recharge of groundwater (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Zero-tiilage: The practise of zero-tillage is associated with the uicreased use of more persistent chemicais for weed control. A Posi-Hoc Assessrnent of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project 204 Tahlc 1. Pnired [-test: Statisticiil Sutiiiiiiiry a!' Menii I>iffereiiccs iri Coiicentrütioris Between WQ Saiiipliiig Sites froni 1974 to 1996, 3 f . .< I" <. . . l s !; WQoosa - 69 WQ0069- 70 VW70. ,,. - 71 I , w 2 .A ". ~~0072-73 , '>, i , .# i / 3. , r,.,,;;; . p;:,. = 1 1, , 1 .1 , - 1 a, * II'_ a , .I , . ; a. VARIABLE , ,(*' ., . A* ~rob, Slgn. , ~vg. Rob. Sin, . Am, hob. - Sîgn. Avg. Pmb. . 816' , Avg.,.; Prob. ûîp,' Levcl Corr. . Levd Corr. Ltvtl : Corr; ' . . corr* ' Lénl. Coyr,' , . ' '2'-' Lcvd 1 f . ir , ..&.' :- : g4 ..\ . -. . . . , - . Ammonir (Total) 0.047 0,061 No -0,023 0,472 Na 0,037 0,301 No -0,045 O, 18.3 Na 0,013 0.774 , No Chloriphyl a 18,245 0,176 No 4,115 0,141 No 4x49 0,657 No -0,35 0,876 Na -1,9 0.573 No Coliforrns (FecaI) - 130,586 0,126 No -134,931 0.492 No 80.931 0.353 Na IRO 0.277 ' Nu -19.448 0,385 No Coiidurtivlly -0.903 0,968 No 160,581 0,004 lncm -60,194 0,206 No -97,807 0,232 No R8,516 0,203 No Cnrhon (Total) 0,02 0,969 No 0,03 0.504 No -0.677 0,230 No -0,463 0,703 NO 1.900 0,056 No Dlsrolvcd Oxy~en 0.113 k7I~t- No -0,216- No 0.523 0,110 No 1,206 0,034 lncresrc -1,094 0.024 Dao'Uaw Iiardncss - 1OJ3 0.462 No -1937 0,140 No 7 0,294 No -122,l 0,009 Oscnars 153,6 0.001 Imnrrot NKJT O 0.033 Incrcase 0.04H 0,450 No -0.075 0,147 No 0,024 0,810 No -0,030 0,87Q No ------Nitrale-NllritcDissoIved 0.034--0,667p No 0,097 0,320 No 0,184 0,111 No 0,062 0,399 No 0,115 0.450 No PH 0,005 0,9011 No -0.055 0.220 No 0,023 0,606 Nu O, 1 0.212 Na -0,056 0.202 Na 1 Phorphorur 0.001 0,978 No -0,110 0.031 Dacreii# 0,106 0,041 Increriie -0.051 0,368 No 0,182 0,010 hcrtwe ' Solldr (Total, Supscndcd) 15,4 14 0,006 Inc-c 6,55 1 0.285 No 5,931 0,244 No 3,966 0,332 No -1,690 0,725 Nn Turbiditp 10,271 0,000 lncreasc 12, IRO 1 0,022 lncrara 2.850 0,OW No 10,068 0,058 No -3,332 0,351 1 Na T~ble2. Two-Sainple Analysis: Slalisticnl Siiiiiiiiaiy of the Mcnii Differcnces iii Concentrations Before nnd Afier Diveisioii Iiiipleiiiciitntion at Sninple Siic 68 ( 1973-77 & 1988-2000). 1. In some cases as noted, raw data was log tnnsfomled to reduee variance and provide a more accurate assessment of similarity or difference between sites. 'l'able 3. Two-Saniplc Analysis: Siatisiical Suriiiiinry: Mcaii Diffcreiice of Coiiceniratioiis: I3eforc aiid Aficr Diversioii I~iiplcriieiitiitiorint Sample Site 70 (1 973-77 & 1988-96) SAMPLE 1: SAMPLE 2, R~JM~IIO~ VARIABLE MWDATA: Average Avcragt Slgniflwnt Signliîcrnt . . Ammonia (Tolil) Unlog 0.1 17 0.284 0,191 No Coliforms. Fcol IAI? 1.908 1.276 0.012 Carbon ca of ai Organic) hg 1,334 1,207 0.003 Conductivity Unlog 523.077 772.55 0.000 lncrcrssd , Dissolvcd Orv~en- - Unlon 6.5 19 6.1105 0.7 13 No tlardne~s ~nlog 260,194 29 1,545 0,605 No NKJT, Total LOB 0,III 0,l4R 0,364 No Nitrate-Nllritc, Diawlvd Uiilog 0.16 0.547 0,010 ' lncrrutd 1111 Uiilor 0.00 0 -08 0.446 No 1, III some cases as iioted, raw data was log transfomieci to rcduce variance and providc a more accurate assessrnent of similarity or difference betwcen sites, l'liblc 6, Liiicar Regrcssion Ariiilysis: Statisticnl Suiiiiiiary of the Correlalion of Coiiçentratioii wiîli Strcaiii Flow aiid Tciiipornl 'I'rciid nt WQ Sitc 70 Prioi. to Diversioii liiipleiiienlation (1 973- 1977). CORRELATION WlTH FLOW I TEMPORALTREND :, 1 RtJWHo: ReJdHo: VARIABLE RAW DATA: Corrclrlion Sifinikant Siyilcaat ' Cotrtlrllon . SI#nlflcart Slgnliicant Coeliicicnt hvcl Correiillon Coeikient hVd Correüîion Anirnnnia (Total) Log 0.274 0.323 No O, ISO 0,595 No Chlorophyl i No Diih --.. -.-- *.-- ..-a- **-- .*-. Collforms. Fecal lm- -OS158 0.593 No 4.074 0.494 No 1 Carhon ('rotai Or~rnlr) I Urilon NKJT, 'roial I Nitrate-Nltrite, Dlssolvcd I Uiilon 1. In sotiie cases as naied, raw data was log traiisfoniied to rcducc variance and provide a more accurate nsscssinent of siinilarity or differcnce beiwccn siics. Table Il. A statistical summary of WQI diiririg 1995-97 at a11 saiiipliiig sites. ST ATISTICAL SUMMARY WQûû68 # of WQI 3 Average 50,O Std. Deviation 7.00 Minimum 42 Maximum 55 I'alde 12. Suiiiinary of waier qualiiy index data wiili aiid witliout selecied irncc iiie~iilsfor sariipling siie WQ0068 (1988-2000), SAMPLINC SITE 1988 1989: 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 8 2 $1, ,,!" =, *, WQ0068' ffSampteRuns Total #Variables 23 23 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 25 25 2 5 24 Total #Saniples 45 79 96 101 102 102 101 160 199 128 156 74 7 1 %FailedVariables(Fl) 22 39 32 28 32 32 32 33 29 32 32 2 8 38 % Failed Samples (F2) 16 24 22 22 46 72 74 25 2 1 25 24 19 18 NSE Scalcd (F3) 20 62 61 38 47 40 88 53 50 5 1 49 42 4 8 WQI 81 56 58 70 58 49 31 61 65. 62 69 69 63 ~~0068'tlSample Runs 'i'oia11IVariablcs 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 2 2 1 'i'otiil #Sariiples 41 71 86 88 88 88 88 152 191 119 144 65 62 % Failed Variables (FI) 19 33 23 18 23 23 23 27 23 27 27 23 3 3 % Failcd Sarnples (F2) 12 17 14 11 14 11 9 2 2 19 20 2 1 14 16 NSE Scaled (F3) 20 60 60 29 36 29 89 5 1 47 48 46 35 47 WQI 83 59 + 62 79 74 78 . 47 64 68, 66 67 75 65 1. The WQI cslculatcd usiiig 25 variables, 2, 'l'lie WQI calculated using 22 variables, excluding three trace inetals: aluiiiiniutii, manganese, aiid iron. Table 13, Suiiiiiiary of watcr qiidity index data for al1 smple sites (1974-77 & 1995-97). SAMPLiNC SITE 1974 1975 1976 1977 1995 1996 " fi@ 1997 ,,, ;. - ' b Il WQ0068 #Sample Kuiis 2 3 2 3 7 12 2 Total #Variables 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Ibial flSamples 18 2 5 18 26 58 97 18 % Failed Variables (F 1) II 33 44 2 2 56 44 44 % Failed Samples (F2) I I 20 2 8 15 3 3 27 39 NSE Scaled (F3) 2 8 49 60 28 49 59 8 1 WQI 81 64 54 77 53 55 42 WQ0069 #Sample Runs 2 3 2 3 7 12 2 Total #Variables 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Total #Saniples IR 25 18 26 58 97 18 % Failed Variables (F 1) 33 2 2 44 3 3 67 56 44 % Failed Samples (F2) 2 2 16 33 19 24 24 39 NSE Scated (173) 2 2 2 5 57 49 32 5 3 79 54 ,' ,' ' wQ1 73 79 54 i'64 .' a , '55,, : ' 43 WQ0070 #Samplc Runs 2 3 2 3 7 12 2 'l'otal #Variables 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Total tlsamples 18 25 18 26 58 97 18 % Failed Variables (FI) 2 2 2 2 44 22 44 5 6 2 2 % Failed Samples (F2) 22 12 28 12 1 O 20 17 NSE Scaled (F3) 53 50 48 32 18 5 2 4 5 WQI 64 68 59 76 a 72 SS 69 IS3!111A b0'0 10'0 10'0 10'0 Ib 91 O6 1 I lS6f 6L'ZC 16 02'0 010'0 010'0 100'0 010'0 Lb SZ 01.1 s 1il'lb L6'SC f6 5'0 9' 1 I'U 92'0 bt'O 9C S0'0 168'0 SO'O 8 1 'O 6E'O C6 0'6>'$'9~ S b'6 b' 1 bb'O 96'1 16 1°fl L'b 2'0 SSO 9b'I C 6 O 1 lif'E 10'0 S0'0 Ib'O lb 0 1 L't 10'0 S1'0 Zb'O 9b [SqlUA 10'0 100'0 100'0 10'0 86. Y'Z t l SO'O 99't 12'1 I t OSO'O 119'0 ZIZO'O 81'0 01~0 O t $0'0 52'0 10'0 b0'0 10'0 Cb ,sap~ SOO'O SOUO'O 0100'0 ZZOO'O Ilb OE'O bL'b 8 1 'O b8'O 81'0 6b 1 o/u Z80 1 'OL L9'9 b I 69'161 19 OOZ 09b b f I'El OC'Zb 16 S C'SI I'O Ils2 IZ'L 16 900'0 19'0 20'0 21'0 10'0 bb p!JuA 10'0 I 00'0 10-0 10'0 8 b O00 1 008Z 191 8H'lfS 6Z' lb6 E6 ,n/u O1 f I f6'19 10'sz b.2 ,wu Ç'Z9 s SB9 CO'S I 8 8 ,Sû!lUA Ozo0'0 O t000'0 8000'0 Nb 5c'O I'I 10'0 91'0 50'0 Lb II' 1 s'O I'O $1 'O UV0 It 0SZ0'0 210'0 100'0 00'0 10'0 il t> tS3!.llM I'f 10'0 $E'O ZZ'O 16 ,w 80' 1 I 0'0 Zt'O 91'0 6Z Appendix 2. Survey Cover Letters & Sample Questionnaire &um THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA NATURAL RESOURCES INSTïïUïE Winnipeg. Manimba Canada R3T2h'- Tclr (204) 474-8373 Fax: (201) 26 1-00.38 - SAMPLE - April 3d, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: . This survey is being conducted on the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project to determine people's views towards the current supply of water along the La Salle River, Eh River,%nd Mill Creek in ternis of water quality and quantity. In total, only 27 people will be pariicipating in this survey, therefore it is important to obtain as many responses as possible to ensure the success of the research. Enclosed is a questionnaire that 1 would like you to fil1 out and retum to the Natural Resources Institute by April 20*, 2000. The questionnaire will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. A stamped, self-addmsed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. The Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion projeci was completcd in 1984 to increase end stabilize flows along the La Salle River, Elrn River, and Mill Creek in South Central Manitoba (see map attached at the end of the questionnaire for diversion locations). The project was constnicted to divert water into these strearns from the Assiniboine River using three low-lift pumping stations. The intention of the diversion was to relieve the chronic problems of water shortage and poor wata qualit' by providing a dependable water supply for municipal, domestic, and agricultural raquirements, and to provide water for the expansion of on-faxm irrigation in the area. The objectives of this survey are: + to coliect current information on the La Salle River Basin, + to assess whether the La Salle River System water supply is adequately meeting the needs of its users, + to identie any impacts that may have occmed as a direct or indirect result of the Diversion Project, and + to solicit opinions on ways to improve the cunent situation in the La Salle River Basin, if necessary, The results of the survey will help determine if the diversion's original purpose has been achieved and if optimal use is being made of the three diversions, This survey is part of a study being undertaken as a Masters Thesis in Natural Resources Management at the University of Manitoba. It is anticipated that the snidy will be completed Summa, 2000. The resulting report will be available to the public through the Elizabeth Dafoe Library, Univmity of Manitoba. As well, there is a check box at the end of this questionnaire to request a summary of the major findings of the study. Ethics approvd, in accordance with University guidelines has been obtained. If there are any concems in this regard, please contact Dr. John Sinclair at (204) 471-8373. Also, please be assured that your responses will be kept in strict confidence and will remain anonyrnous . Your participation will not only contribute to the success of the research, it will assist in improving water resource planning by addressing issues such as accurate impact prediction of water projects and identifjhg appropnate mitigation meanires to ensure that economic, environmental, and social interests of the area can be protected in a sustainable mannet. In closing, your efforts in filling out the survey are greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or require fûrther information, please feel free to contact me collect (afiec 6:00 pm.) at (204) 275-08 10 or Dr. Joh Sinclair at (204) 474-8373 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Lisa Lowman Graduate Student Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba THE UNIVERSITY OF MANïïOBA NATURAL RESOURCES lNSTlTUTr Winnipeg. Maniroba Canada R3TZN2 - SAMPLE - May 3d, 2000 To Whom It May Concem: c Approximately three weeks ago a questionnaire on the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project was delivered to you. If you have already completed and retumed the questionnaire, thad-you very much as your assistance is much appreciated. If you have yet to complete the questionnaire, please take 20-30 minutes of your time to fil1 it out, as it is important to obtain as many responses as possible to ensure the success of the research currently being wnducted on the La SalIe River Basin. PIease contact me if you require an extra copy of the swey questionnaire. If you have any questions or concems please do not hesitate to cail me collect at (204) 275-0810 (after 6:O pm.) or Dr. John Sinclair at (204) 474-8373. As well, please be reminded that your responses will be kept in strict confidence and will remain anonymous. In closing, your efforts in filling out the survey are greatly appreciated. S incerely, Lisa Lowman Graduate Student Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba - SAMPLE - Survey Questionnaire of Current Water Use Activities in the La Saiie River Basin - Water Rights Licencees - The purpose-of this survey is to detemiine your views concerning water qudity and supply available from the La Salle River, Elm River, and Miil Creek. Pkase complete the entire survqt, reading euch quesîÏon curefully. Look ut ufl possible selecîions before unswering each question. Follow the directions in the boxes as you go through the survey. as some sections nzay not apply to you. PART A: Background Information 1). Which one of the following categories best applia to you? @leuse check on& one) O Land owner O Land owner & operator Q Land operator 0 Hutterite colony Cl Other @leme specifL) 2). Specie your site location within the La Salle River Basin (plcase see map attached at the end of the questionnaire for boundarïes of the three watersheds). a Upper Sale Watershed D Central Saie Watershed Cl Lower Saie Watershed 3). How many years have you been living andlor operating at this location? Y-- 4). How wouId you describe your site location? O Farm Cl Hutterite colony O Farm with major source of income elsewhere O Residence only O Fmwith minor source of income elsewhere a Other blesse specr3) 5). Mat type of farming operationdo you have? @lcasecheckafl rhar oppw Cl Potatoes O Grass seed -., O OiIseeds Cl Cereal gains 0 Vegetables Cl Livestock Q Forages Cl Fmit O Pulse O Sod Q Nursery O Not applicable O Other @leme spccrjSl bclowj 6). What is your typical length of crop rotation? 2 Year Rotation 3 Year Rotation 4 Year Rotation Not applicable Other (please specify below) 7). If there is livestock on pur fm,how many head of each type are there? (If unsure, estimate using a range eg: QO, 20-50-50-100, 100-200, etc.) - TYPE OF LWSTOCK How many? Not applicable Hogs Poultry O Turkeys Cl Dairy cattle Cl Beef cattle U Othcr @learespecifl6eZolv) 8). What are your sources of water for the following uses? @leare check all thai applyl WATER USE River Municiml Wcll Iiauled in Other hlease specz>) Domestic consumption Field crop irrigation Garden irrigation Lawn watenng Greenhouse watering Livestock waterïng 9). Do you pump water to an off-stream storage site such as a dugout? O Yes O No * :L. If Yes,please provide rhe following in/ormution: + What type of off-strearn storage do you have? (Le. dugout, holding tank, etc.) + What is purwater source for this storage site(s)? CT La Salle River O Elm River a Mill Creek Q Groundwater O Other @lemespect5) 4 What is the capacity of your pump? (units?: Imp galdmin, US @min, ft'/mïn, m3/sec) + What is the number of times you filleci your dugout or off-strmm storage site in 1999? + What is the total stonge capacity? (units?: Imp gals. US gal, ft), m3) + If storage capacity is unknown, please estimate the following dimensions of your stoxzge site: average length: average width: average heigh t: ***mu used water in 1999for irri~ationsurposes, go to PART B, anUor ***lf you used water in 1999 for purposes ozlier than irriration, go to PART D, ***Otherwise check NO beiow and go to PART G PART B: IRRIGATION 1). If you know the amount of water applied monthly (in inches), please fil1 out the following table for each crop that you imgated in 1999 and procced to FART D, aihcwjse procecd to PART C. Wattr Applitd hlonihly In 1999 Crop Nanie Nuniber of ~attr~ource' Locatlon(s) (Inchcs) Acres Iirigrttd of lrrlgaied Field May June July Ausust Scpteinbtr (inches) (inchcs) (Incl~es) (Iiiches) (lnchcs) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1. Il'uicr source: La Salic River, Elni Rirrr; Afill Creck, gtwnhrnlcr; mitnicipal, haitlcd in, etc, , PART C: IRRIGATION I), If you do 11ot know the amount of water applied monthly (in inches), plcase fiIl out the following table for each type of irdgntion systcin iiscd in 1909 and procccd to PAR'^ Average Alarlmum numhor of acres numhtr of hourr Type of lrri ation Capacity 01 Total Number of Water Source for this Date first irrlgnted per this Irrlgition S~sttmgi ~~itern' Acres lrrlgatd irrigation syslemJ lrrigattd wlth waler systcm was by thls syslem In thlu aystem la lhb syatem in this aystcm usrd rppllcrtlon In rppllcation In contlnualiy 1999 1999 1999 In 1999' 1999 1999 operated In 1999 I I 1 I I 1. Centre Pivor, Tmwling gun, Tdckk, Side Roll, rlc. 2, List the pumping capaci)y ofthe sysrem in howuniîs such as Imp gal/mln, USgal/mln, )?/sec, n'/sec 1, H'aîer source: Lo Solle River, &lm Rlw, Mill Cree&, gmunhwler, munkipol, Aaulrd In, etc, 4, Ewyday, my2"' day, evety day, eclc, PART F: Sufficient Water Supply 1)- Do you currently get enough water from the rivcr(s) at al1 required Gmes? Cl Yes Cl No 0 Not applicable + If No, speci fy whkh river(s) + If No, what rnonth(s) of the yearare without suficierrt water? a ~pril Q October Cl May 0 Novernber Ci June Cl Decernber O Jury O January Ck Aumat D Februa~y Cl September O March What are the cames of insufkient watet during this month(s)? - 2). Do you currentiy get enough water hmthe wcLi(s) at aii required times? Ci Yes Cl No a Not applicable + IfNo, what month(s) of the year are without sufficient water? Q ~pni 0 October Cl May O November a lune O December Cl July O January a AU~S~ O February 0 September O Match + \mat are the causes of insufficient water during this month(s)? PART G: Future Irrigation Expansion 1). Do you plan on irrigating in the future or expandinç your existing irrigation operation? 0 Yes O No O Not applicable + If Yes, how many additional acres do you intend to irrigate? + What crop(s) do you intend to imgate? + What type of irrigation equiprnent do you plan to use? + What water source(s) do you intend to use? O La Salle River O ElmRiver 0 Mill Creek 0 Groundwater 0 Haufed in Q Municipal O Other @leare speczfi) + When do you think you will install or expand your irrigation systern? C1 Witbin 1 year 0 WithUi 3 to 5 years O Withïn2 years Ll Over 5 years ***mou have Iived or worked in the La SU& River Bmim since at lem 1983, go to PART H and proceed to PART 1or, ***Ifyou have fived or worked in the La SaIIe Riwr Basin anvtrLnteafier 1983, go li directiy to PART 1 1 PART H: Water Quaiity Comparison 1). Since you have Iived or worked in the La SdIe River Basin area since at Ieast 1983, how do you rate the quality of the current water as compared to the original water quality prior to conmuction of the Diversion Project in L9S4? @leme check a11 that upplyl, Much Better Better Same Worse Much Worse La SaIIe River: Elm River MiIl Creek: Well Water: 0 Cl O Please describe beIow what lead to the cbanging conditions: PART 1: Water Quality Since the construction of the Diversion Project in 1954, there has been very Iittle docmentation of impacts that rnay have occur~das a direct or indirect result of the Diversion Project- For the purpose of this survey, an impact is defmed as "a change in a parameter, over a spccified period and within a defined area. resulting fiom a particular activity compared with the situauon which would have occmed had the activity not been initiated" (Wathern, 1988). 1)- Ln your opinion, has the diversion had any positive impacts on: O Fish 0 Wildlife Q Vegetation Cl SoiIs CJ Social (e.g. recreation, etc.) Q Economic Q Unsure D Other @leare specr%t) + Please describe in detail any positive impacts noted- 2). In your opinion, has the diversion had any neeative impacts on: O Fish Wildlife O Vegetation a Soils D Social (e-g. recreation, etc.) Q Economic Cl Unsure a Other @leme specz%jl) + Please describe in detail below any negative impacts noted. + Can you suggest any ways ofcorrecting the situation(s)? 3)- How would you nte the overall qtdity of water £kom the folIowing sources: Very Good Good Average focr Very Poor Not applicable Well Water O O O 0 O O LaSalle River O Q O O D EhRiver O Q 0 O O Mill Creek Cl O 0 cl 0 4)- If you judge the river water quality as poor, how would you describe its characteristics in tenns of the following factors @leaxe check only those rirat apply): Please descnbe characteristids) in detail Cloudiness Cl Colour O Odour O Hardness 0 Alkalinity (pH) 0 Salini ty 0 Taste O D Not applicable 5). If you judge the river water quaiity as poor, when does this occur? @leare check ail that app&): At high water levels At low water levels Al1 the time Spring (Marc h-May) Sumrner (June-August) Fall (S ept-NovemSer) D Not applicable 6). If you judge the well water quality as poor. how would pudescnbe its characteristics in tenns of the foUowing factors lplease check on- rliose rhat appiy): Please descnbe characteristics in detail Cloudineis Ci Colour O Odour Q Hardness O Alkalinity (pH) O S alinity Li Taste Cl Not applicable 7). If you judge the well water quaIity as poor, when does this occuf! AI1 the time O Spriag (March-May) CI Summer (June-August) U Fa11 (S ept-November) O Wuter (December-kbmary) O Cl Not applicable 8a). Please indicate any concems you may have wi& water quaIity dong the La Salle River. Elm River andor Mill Creek 8b). In reference to question #Sa). can you suggest any ways of comcting the situaùon(s)? 9). If you use the La Salle River, EhRiver. andlor MiIl Creek for recreational purposes, please indicate which river(s) @euse check all rhnt upp(y). Q La Salle River O Elm River Cl Mill Creek Q none 10). If you use the river(s) for recreational purposes, what for? @leare check al2 that appZy) Q canoeing O cross country skiing Cl boating O snowmobiIing O swimming O ice skating O fishing CI other @leme spect%j) CI not applicable 1 1). How would you rate the overall condition of the river O Good D Satisfactory O Poor + If conditions are poor, during what times of the year? O Spring(March-May) Cl Surnmer (June-August) Ci Fall (September-November) O -ter (Deccmber-Febmary) O Ail year round + If conditions are poor, please describe these conditions and specify what rivees): + If conditions are poor, cmyou suggest any ways of correcting the situation(s)? 13). In your opinion, does the condition or water quality of the river(s) affect recreational use? O Yes 13). Do you feel that more environmental conservation efforts are nceded to preservc and protect the La Salle River Basin as part of a healthy ecosystem? O Strongly agree O Agree O Neutra1 O Disagee O Strongiy Disagrce 4 If you agree, what actions do you feel could be taken ta preserve and protect Stream and river flows? + Ifyoudisagree, why? If you Iived in the La Salle River Basin pnor to the development of the Assiniboine-La Salle River Diversion Project in 1983, were you involved at any point in the planning stages of the project? (please check any that apply): 0 Not applicable O No D Survey questionnaire Cl Other involvernent @lemespecxfi below) Were you involved in any monitoring prograns aAer completion of the Diversion pmject in 1984? (please check any that apply): Not applicable No Yes If Yes, In what way were you involved? + If No, would you Lke to take part in a monitoring program? Pletlse provide any additional comments or concems you may have with the current conditions aiong the La Salle River, Elm River, and/or Mill Creek (in tenns of water quaiity, watcr quantity, andor water use activities), Cl Yes! 1 would like to request a summary of the major findings of the study to be mailed to the following address: If you have any questions or concems about this swey, please feel free to contact me collect (after 6:00 pm.) at (204) 275-0810 or writc ta: Lisa Lowman Naturnl Resources Institutc 303 St. Paul's Cobge, West Wing University of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 Appendix 3. SURVEY RESULTS - La Salle & Elm Rivers - Appendü 3 - QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS - LA SALLE RIVER - (Note: answers chosen as "not applicable*' are excluded from statistical calculations), PART A: Background Information Question 1: Which one of the following categories best appües to you? (please check only one) Fifieen people (15) responded to this question. The majonty of respondents were land owners and/or operators- Whereas, two respondents belong to Hutterite colonies- Freciuencv Remonse 13 Land owner andfor operator 2 Huttente colony O Other Question 2: Specify your site location within the La Salle River Bh(pl- see mrrp attached at the end of the questionnaire for boundaries of the thme watersheds). Fifteen people (15) mponded to this question. Respondents were distrïbuted relatively evenly among the three watersheds dong the La Salk River. Frea uencv Reswnse 4 Upper Sale Watershed 5 Centrai Sale Watershed 6 Lower Sale Watershed Question 3: How many years have you been living andor operating at this location? Fourteen people (14) responded to this question. People have Iived andforoperated at this location anywhere from three to sixtyeight years, where 71% of the respondents have Iived andlor operated at this location prior to the construction of the diversion project in 1984 Appendix 3 - Page 1 Question 4: How would you describe your site location? Fifteen (15) people responded to this question. The majorïty of respondents described their site location as a fann King their sole source of incorne- 9 Farm 1 Fmwith major source of income elsewhere 3 Fann with minor source of income elsewhere 2 Huttente colony O Residence oniy O ûther: Question 5: What type of farming operation do you have? @kèase check al2 ihat apply) Twelve (12) people responded to this question. The majonty of respondents indicated that cereai grains were grown, followed by oilseeds, fruit, and vegetables. Fre~uencv Reswnse Freciuenc y Resmnse 8 Cereal grains 2 Potatoes 6 Oilseeds 2 Livestoc k 5 Vegetabtes 2 Pulse 5 Fruit O Sod 4 Forages O Nursery 3 Grass seed O Other Appendix 3 - Page 2 Question 6: What is your typical length of crop rotation? Twelve (12) people responded to this question, The majority of respondents indicated a three to four year crop rotation- Frea uencv Resvonse 2 2 Year Rotation 4 3 Year Rotation 4 4 Year Rotation Other: 1 Nurse crop rotation & 4 years 1 6 year rotation 2 Not applicabie Question 7: If there is livestock on your farm, how many head of each type are there? (If unsure, estimate using a range e.g.: dO,20-50,50-100,100-200, etc.) One (1) person responded to this question indicating Livestock as king part of their fanning operation. As such. the majority of respondents do not have iivestock as part of their fam Freauency Reswnse Number O Hogs O Pouitry O Turkeys O Dairy Cattle 1 Beef Cattle O Othec 10 Not applicable Question 8: What are your sources of water for the foilowing uses? (please check dl thut ~PP~Y) Fourteen (14) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents indicated that their main use of river water was for field crop and garden imgation. Other uses of river water included lawn watering, greenhouse & livestock watering, and field spraying- Respondents indicated that no water is hauled in. Al1 water uses are descrîbed below- Apperadk 3 - Page 3 œ WAER USE River Municival WelI Hauled in Other Domestic consumptim O 1 (dugout) Field crop irrigation 9 O Garden irrigation IO O Lawn watering 6 O Greenhouse watering -3 O Livestock watering I O Other (please spec~fibeloiv) Spraying 2 1 (dugout) Field Spraying O O Question 9a: Do you pump water to an off-stream storage site such as a dugout? Founeen (14) people responded to tbs question. 21% of the respondents indicated that they purnped river water to an off-stream storage site- However. the majorîty of respondents (79%)indicated that they did not have an off-stream storage site. Frequency Resmnse 3 Yes 11 No (If the resporuient indicated "Yes", the following questions were also answered): Question 9b: What type of off-strcPm stocage do you have? (ir.dugout, holùing tank, etc.) Three (3) people responded to this question. All respondents indicated that they had a dugout used as an off-stream storage site. Frea uenc~ Response Dugout Holding Tank Other -- Appendix 3 - Page 4 Question 9c: What is your water source for this storage site($)? Three (3) people responded to this question, indicating that the La SaIle River was their water source for their storage sites. However, only one of the three respondents used the dugout in 1999 (see Table 7A-1 below), 3 La Saile River O Elm River O Mill Creek O Groundwater O Other Table 7.1 Dimensions and storage capacity of the three dugouts are summsirised below- The total volume of water stored in dugouts dong the La Salle River was approxirnately as indicated by the three respondents. Dugout Specifkations Dugout #1 1 Dugout m Dugout #3 Pump Capacity A 2 H.P. 300 Imp.gaYmin. Unsure No. Times Dugout Fiiied 1 O O 1 Dimensions of dugout (fil 1 250 x 83 x IOft 60m x 20m x 1.5m 1 Total stora~eca~acitv i 200.000 fi3 1 500.00 hm-eal. 1 1800 m3 1 .-- Appendix 3 - Page 5 - PART B: IRRIGATION Question 1: If you know the amount of water applied monthly (in inches), please 811 out the following table for each crop that you irrigated in 1999 and proceed to PART D, otherwise proceeà to PART C. Four (4) people responded to this question. indicating that the La Salle River was their water source for imgated crops such as potatoes. vegetables. and km-es- Crop Name Irrigated Water Source Of Field (Inches) May - June - July Aug. Sept, -- -- Po tatoes 500 La SalleRiver O O 2 2 VegetabIes 25 Salle River 4- 10-2 2 3 2 2 La 3 . Vegetabks 15 La Salle River 34-8-2E 2 3 4 O O 27-8-2E strawbemesL 1 7 La Salle River 1 NE 29-8-2E O O O O O 1. Tm much min in 1999. didn't have to higare. PART C: IRRIGATION Question 1: If you do not know the amount of water applied monthly (in inches), please fi11 out the foUowing table for each type of irrigation system used in 1999 and proceed to PART D. Three (3) people responded to this question, indicating the capacity of theü imgation system to assist in determining the approximate amount of water withdrawn fiom the La Salle River in 1999. Irrig. Capac, # Water Start End How # Hrs. #Acres Max. # System OC Acres Source ~ate~~ate' often Fr Fr hrs. systeml 1rrig.f used5 apPüc6 app~c7 d8 Solid Set 600 IO La Salle Unsure Unsure 3 5 4 Unsure Solid Set 3009 1 12 La Salle May Aue. 15 1 2 4 4 Solid Set , 600 1 4 La Salie May 5 Sept-12 20 1 1 2 2 1. Gallons per minute. 2. Total number of acres im-gated by ihis systern in 1999. 3. Date first im-gated with ihis system in LW. 4. Date last imgated with this system in 1999. 5. On average. how often was this systern used in 1999. 6. Avenge number of houn if imphon per water application in 1999. 7. Average number of acrcs imgatcd per water application in 1999- 8. Maximum number of hours ihis imgation system was continually openicd in 1999. Appendù. 3 - Page 6 PART D: WA'IXR USES OTHER THAN IRRIGATION Question 1: If you know the estimated volume of water withdrawn on a monthly basis for 1999, please fil1 out the following table for each water use (pther than irri~ation)and proceed to PART F, otherwise proceed to PART E. Three (3) people responded to this question, indicating that water was withdrawn from wells, dugouts, and the La Salle Riverfor uses such as household, lawn. garden, spraying, washing equipment, and livestock. Spraying Dugout Washing Dugout MDMO200womrmm 1 ~aui~ment Garden, La Salle saa tm moo ' wioo iam sm 7m [ivestock, Rivet spraying t PART E: WATER USES OTHER THAN IRRIGATION Question 1: If you cannot estimate the volume of water withdrawn for each water use, please complete the foIlowing table if you use groundwater or water directly from the river and proceed to PART F. Two (2) people responded to this question, estimating the arnount of water withdrawn fiom the La Salk River and well for domestic purposes. 1 (heurs) in 1999 Garden & Grass f La Salle River 600 05 2 * 1 Domestic 1 Well 1 10 2 1 Unsure 1 Appendü 3 - Page 7 PART F: Suffcient Water Supply Question 1: Do you currently get enough water from the river(s) at al1 required times? Nine (9) people responded to this question. Al1 respondents who currently use river water indicated that they do receive enough water from the river at al1 times- Freauencv Response 9 Yes O No 3 Not applicable Question 2: Do you currently get enough water from the weli(s) at aN required times? Four (4) people responded to this question. Al1 respondents who currently use well water indicated that they do get enough water fiom their weiI(s)- Frequencv Reswnse Yes No Not applicable PART G: Future Irrigation Expansion Question la: Do you plan on irrigating in the future or expanding your existing irrigation operation? Twelve (12) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (83%) indicated that they do intend on irrigating andlor expanduig their existing operation in the future. Frequency Response 10 Yes 2 No 1 Not applicable Question lb: If yes, how many additional acres do you intend to irrigate? Ten ( 10) people responded to this question. In total, respondents predicted that approximately 420 additional acres would be irrigated in the near future. Total Number of Acres: 420 Appendir 3 - Page 8 Question Ic: What crop(s) do you intend to irrigate? Nine (9) people responded to this question. The type of crops varied among respondents- Frequency Remonse Potatoes Vegetables Fruit Bemes Grass Seed Tree Nursery Herbs Question Id: What type of irrigation equipment do you plan to use? Nine (9) people responded to this question. The type of irrigation equipmnt planned to be used varied with each respondent, however the solid set was slightly more popular. 3 Solid Set i Gravity System 1 Movable Pipes 1 Hand Move 1 TravelIing Guns 1 Wheel Move 1 Side Roll Question le: What water sources do you intend to use? Eight (8) people responded to this question. The major@ of respondents (75%) indicated that their water source for irrigation would be fiom the La Salle River- Frequency Res~onse La Salle River EhRiver Mill Creek Groundwater Hauled in Municipal Other: Assini bine River Appendù 3 - Page 9 Question If. When do you thiali: you will instaii or expand your irrigation system? Six (6) people responded to this question, The majority of respondents (S396) indicated that they will install or expand their imgation systern within five yean- Freauencv Resmnse 2 Within I year 1 Within 2 years 2 Within 3 to 5 years 1 Over 5 years Note: For the remaining sections of the questionnaire. four additional respondents were included (two golf course operators, one sewage lagoon operator, and one water treatment operator), During semi-structureci interviews conducted with these operators, they were asked non-specific questions in the next sections since their personal view and opinions were highly value& As a result, a total of nineteen people (15+4) had an oppotunity to respond to the remaining question. PART H: Water Quality Cornparison Question la: Since you bave livd or worked in the La Srille River Basin area since at least 1983, how do you rate the quaiïty of the cumnt water as compad to the original water qdtyprior to construction of the Diversion Project in 1984? @feasecheck aü that @y). Fifteen (15) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (80%) felt that the water quality of the La Salle River had improved since the development of the Diversion Project in 1984. La Salle River: Fre~uency Response Much Better Better Same Worse Much Worse Six (6) people responded to this question. Three out of the six respondents (50%) felt that well water had improved since the development of the Diversion Roject in 1984. Whereas two of the respondents (33%) felt that the well water was worse in terrns of water quaiity. Only one respondent indicated no change in the quality. Appendù 3 - Page 10 WelI Water: Freauencv Res-ponse Much Better Better Same Worse Much Worse Question Ib: Please describe what lead to the cbangiag conditions. Commentsfrom respondents ~vhofelt ~~nditionsimproved since 1984: "Better warerflow. river contains higher water levels " ",-.warer quality has improved due to some movernent, .. .wuter does not get stagnant" "Nor as stale, more flow throughout summer ntcmths. water ievels are higher" "Less algae, clearer " "More water ", "The continuous pumping fiom the Assiniboine River" Commentsfrom respondents who felt conditions worsened since 1984: "Grearer amount of polution in the water pwnped out of the Assiniboine River, greater amount of pollution entenng the LQ Salle fiom intensive hog operan'ons" PART 1: Water Quality Since the construction of the Diversion Project in 1984, there has been very littie documentation of impacts that may have occurred as a direct or indirect result of the Diversion Project- For the purpose of this survey, an impact is defined as "a change in a parameter, over a specified period and within a defined area. resulting from a particular activity compared with the situation which would have occurred had the activity not been initiated (Wathern, 1988). Question la: In your opinion, bas the diversion had any positive impacts on fi&, wildlife, vegetation, mils, social (e.g. recreation, etc.), economic, or other? Fourteen (14) people responded to this question. Responses were diverse covenng al1 areas of impact with an emphasis on fish, social, and economic issues. Appendü 3 - Page 1 1 FÏsh Wildlife Vegetation Soils Social Economic Unsure Question 1b: PIease describe in detail any positive impacts noted. "Bettzr waterfur the immgatedpans, boating, and recreatïon, TOU~S~lielps local buinesses*- "There has been a lot of canoeingfiom the La Bam'ere Park West", "Businesses may locate, knowing that good warer is mailable" "Higher warer level s allow for more canoeing, etc.,- " "\Virh continual waterflow, there are a lot more waterfowl and pre&tow birds along the river. We have recreaiionally caught at lemfTve diferent species of Fh. ad the river is growing in populan-ty in recreation such as canoeing,frshing, skiing, snow-mobiiïng, skaring and walking in the winterW- "There is currenrly morefish. there were very fmtw in the river before the diversion, now there are jack j7.k People fish ut the dam (a 10 9i 16 Jack wax caught a few years ago). Strawberry fanns and golf courses are amples of economic ùnpacts k the aream- "Fish were ody seen when the Assiniboine River flooded into the La Salle River pnor ro development of the diversion project. Now fish are found at uil rimes." "Aiwqsa standard level of good water al1 year" Question 2a: In your opinion, bas the diversion had any nenative impacts on: Twelve (12) people responded to this question- Nine of the twelve respondents indicated either none or unsure of any negative impacts as a result of the diversion project. The remaining three respondents indicated negative impacts on wiidlife, vegetation, and social issues. Frequenc y Remonse Fish Wildlife Vegetation Soik Social Economic None Unsure .- Appendu 3 - Page 12 Question 2b: Please describe in detail below any negative impacts noted. "One of the negutive effects we've noticed is the increased population of beavers- 7%- are desrruying rnany trees afong the riverbar& and causing a lot of damage''- "Currenrly, I see vety few rucoons or clams- As a child, when we were at the river. we would find large clam approx six inches long. Now. wefind the odd shell buz only rhree tofour inches long. Alsu, now there is more weeds wirh clear wuter- A fiend of mine is a skilled frapper. and said there luas very few clams in the river. and thus less racoons (I would have to agree with Ir îm)". "Florving water in the winter creares unsafe ice conditions so winter activities on the ice (snow- mobiling. etc,) are unsafeW- Question 2c: Can you suggest any ways of correcting the situation(s)? "Perhaps get the Manitoba Consentution. Department of Naturai Resources tu trap or kill beavers or allow landowners to help cur-bock the popuiarion There is no easy answerW- Question 3: How would you rate the overail quality of water from the following sources: Nineteen (19) people responded to this question. Eight of the respondents (42%) rated the overaü water quality above average, six rated average, and five rated below average. One respondent rated the quality in the summer as "average" and "very pwr" in the enter (the two ratings were averaged to "poor*'overail)- La Salle River: Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Not applicable Nine (9) people responded to this question. Five of the respondents (56%) ratai the overall water quality of wells above average, whereas four respondents (44%)rated below average. WeU Water: Freauency Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Not applicable AppendÏx 3 - Page 13 Question 4a: If you judge the La Salle River water quality as poor, hou. wouid you describe its characteristics in terms of the fdlowing factors (please check ody those thaapply). Six (6) people responded to this question. The rnajority of respondents indicated that odour (67%) and cloudiness (50%) were two of the major concerns with the quality of the LaSalle River water. Freq uency Res~onse CIoudiness Colour Odour Hardness AIka1init.y (pH) Salinity Taste Not applicable Question 4b: PIease describe cbaracteristic(s) in detail. Cloudiness: "Cloudy especially afier downpours (grey in color)" "Cloudy at high water levels" "Murky most of the tirne" "Sometimes murky, especidiy in the winter" Odour: "Odour is bad when weather is wann"- "Odour and taste is worse in the springtime" ""0dou.rfiom the sewage" Colour: "Sornetimes black in the winter" -Taste: "Poortarte in the winter" Hardness: "Very hard in the winrer (up to 300ppm) whereas acceptable level is approximarely 1OO-l5ûpprn Question 5: If you judge the river water quality as poor, when does this occur? (pleaîe check dl thî apply): Eight (8) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents indicated that river water quality was poor during high water levels (including spnngtime) and during the summer and winter months- Appendir 3 - Page 14 Freauency Resuonse 4 At high water levels At low water levels Al1 the time Sphg (Marc h-May) Summer (June-August) Fa11 (Sept-November) Winter (December - Febmary) Not applicable Question 6: If you judge the weU water qunüty €rom the La Salle River as Pr,how would you describe its characteristics in te- of the following factors (pleose check only those thai @y): Three (3) people responded to this question. Responses varkd in terms of poor well water quality characteristics including cloudiness, odour, hardness, and taste- Freq uencv Resrmnse I Cloudiness O Colour I Odour 3 Hardness L -ty (pH) O Salinity 1 Taste 6 Not applicable Question 7: If you judge the yeJ water quality as par, when does this occur? Three (3) people responded to this question with two responses indicating that well water quality was poor at "ail tïmes" of the year. whereas one respondent indicated "winter" as a time of poor well water. Resmnse 2 Al1 the time O Spring (Mach-May) O Sumrner (June-August) O Fa11 (Sept-November) 1 - Winter 6 Not applicable Appendix 3 - Page 15 Question sa:. PIease indicate any concerns you may have with water quality along the La Salle River, EhRiver and/or Mill Creek. "The mrtnicipal lagoons dumping into the river (La Salle) causes some concern " "Ir seems thar over the last few years, there habeen a for more algae in the La Salle River- 1 think recenrflooding and ~vashoffhas added a Iot of nirrogen ro the water and makes it a ve- good environrnenrfor algae". "Tirere is a problem with some livestock operarions too close rot he river or creeks adjoing the river". "Dumping of raw sewage" "Tlre problems occur because no one regulates the people who are contminating the warer. Our regdatirtg bodies (governrnent) cunsider the hog factories and processing plants ro be so important to their boîtom lines that they (hog factonés and processing plants) are allowed to pollute rhe rivers with no consequences", Question 8b: In reference to question #Sa), clan you suggest any ways of correcting the situation(s)? "lt seems to be gem-ng worse each year. Perhaps ifthere was a way tu lirnit the umount of nitrogen washed into the riverfiom many sources*'. "ifpeople have an ejector orfieu maybe a gram should be made available to hook inro the municipal sewage line. Every little projecr would help eliminare some problems ". "River survellience "- Question 9: If you use the La Saïle River, EhRiver, and/or Mill Creek for mreatioual purposes, please indicaîe wbich river(s) (pfease check al2 thut upply). Eighteen (18) people responded to thïs question. Thirteen of the eighteen responses (72%) indicated that the La Salfe River was used for recreational purposes. Frequency Resvonse 13 La Salle River O Elm River O Mil1 Creek 5 None Appendü 3 - Page 16 Question 10: If you use the river(s) for mmtionaipurposes, what for? (pleme check al1 that appw Thirteen (13) people indicated that they use the La Salle River for recreation puporses. The more popular recreational activities dong the La Salle River include ice skating and snowrnobilkg foiiowed by cross£ountry skiing and canoeing as indicated by the response rates- Frea uencv Resmnse Canoeing Boating Swimming Fishing Cross country skiing Snowmobiling Ice Skating Other: tobogganhg Not applicable Question lla: HOWwould you rate the ovedcondition of the rivefis) for recreationaî purposes? Fifieen (15) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (47%) rated the ovedl conditions of the La Salle River for recreational purposes as "gd. Whereas. 2046 of the respondents rated the conditions as "satisfactory". and 33% rated as ''poor", Frea uenc~ Reswnse 7 Good 3 Satisfactory 1 Satisfactory to Poor 4 Poor Question llb: If conditions are Pr,during wbat times of the year? Seven (7) people responded to this question. The rnajority of respondents indicated that recreational conditions are poorest dunng sumrner months followed by winter months- A ppendk 3 - Page 17 Freuuencv Response Spring (Marc h-May) Surnmer (June-August) Fa11 (September-November) Winter (December-February) Ail year round Question llc: If conditions are poor, please describe these conditions and specify wbat river (s) : "neLa Salle River seems to become very green (algue reeds, erc-)dun'ng the summer month. I wiii presume from waterfin-offiom fields where fertilizer/chemicals are present could play an adverse effect "- "The La Salle River is nor deep enough. therefore it heuves when pumping occurs- When the water warms in the La Salle River in the summer. ususaily the river is covered uith a green Iuyer of algae "- "17zere is a lot of growth and debris in the La Salle River", Question lld: If conditions are pr,can you suggest any ways of correcthg the situation(s)? "Construct srnaller dmdong the river to keep levels higher", "Usually in the Zate fa& a severe fiost MY! kill the olgae, and this is probably the most scenic tirne dong the river and shoreline during the year, nicest time for canoers". "Needs cleaning ". Question 12: In pur opinion, does the condition or water quality of the river@) affect recreational use? Fifieen (15) people responded to this question- 47% of the respondents indicated that the condition of the La Salle River dœs affect recreational uses. Whereas, 40% of the respondents indicated that is did not affect recreational uses. The remaining of the respondents (13%) were unsure. Freq uency Response Yes No Unsure -- - - Appendix 3 - Page 18 9 Question 13a: Do you feel that more environmental conservation efforts are aeeded to presewe and protect the La Salie River Basin as part of a healthy ecosystem? Seventeen (17) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (65%)agree (and strongly agree) that more environmental conservation efforts are needed. Whereas, 35% of the respondents rernained neutral- FrequencY Remonse Strongly agree Agree Neutra1 Disagree Strongly Disagree Question 13b: If you agree, what actions do you feel could be taken to preseme and protect stream and river flows? "Clean out river, including a maintenance program for deadfaIl and Dutch elm diseuse, Re- plant areas where there are no trees iefi on the riverbanks ". "Munitor and test water every year". "Maybe increased waterflow would help eliminate the stagnant eflect that seems to be cornmon during the summer". "Morepolicing of the river". "Put a stop to those who are polluîing the water". "Keep a steMflow of water a.was kept since 1984"- Question 14a: If you lived in the La Salie River Basin prior to the development of the Assiniboine-La Salie River Diversion Project in 1983, were you involved at any point in tbe planning stages of the project? (please check any that apply): Eleven (1 1) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (9 1%) were not involved in the planning stages of the diversion project. However, one respondent did participate in a survey questionnaire thar was part of the HiIdebrandt- Young Study conducted in 1981- 1O No 1 Survey questionnaire O Other involvement 5 Not applicable Appendix 3 - Page 19 Question 14b: Were puinvolved in any monitoring programs after completion of the Diversion project in 19W? (please check any tbat apply): Twelve (12) people responded to this question- Al1 of the respondents indicated that they were not involved in any monitoring propms afier the diversion project was completed in 1984. Frequency Remonse 12 No O Yes 4 Not applicable Question 14c: If No, would you like to take part in a monitoring program? Twelve (12) people responded to this question. 50% of the respondents indicated that they would take part in a monitoring program- Whereas. the other 50% of respondents indicated that they would not like to participate-. Fre~uency Reswnse 6 Yes 6 No ADDITIONAL COMhEENTS Question 15: Plesse provide any additional comments or concerns you may have with the current conditions along the La SdeRiver, Elm River, and/or Mill Creek (in terms of water quaüty, water quantity, andor water use activities). "People used to swim in the ta Salle River. but we don't see that anymore", "ln rny opinion, the La Salle River will have a much greater impact as tinte progresses. Tkere is a great porential for recreation, domestic water sources, imgation and agriczdtural uses. I would be very interested in a joint honicuiturd venture to use this water ". "Our vegeruble fann has not been in business since 1992. However, we use the watercfiom La Salle River for our small house garden and our flower beds ". " Warer qrtaliq and quantity (seen ma concern), The dam at La Barriere Park needs to be mainrained and monitored to ensure water levels on the river. lt has happened that the dam was opened and water drained to very low levels", "Ir seerns rhat more people are using the river for winter recreation, which may be an area. that residents near the n'ver, can help to expand. The summer water quality seerns to be getting worse ench year due to increased sources of nitrogen entering the river". "Because we receive drinking water out of the La Salle River through Sanford treatment plant, it is a concenz abour runoflfiom livestock operazion and other dumping in the river- This should Appendii 3 - Page 20 be monitered on a continuing busis, 1 hope tkycan supply us with qualiry drinking warerfor a long rime". " We use the La Salle Riverfor a lot qf recreatiori and hope to continue in thefirrure" " We seem to have a major problem with beavers destroying a lot of young and old growrlr along the riverbanks. Something is going to have to be done soon, Othenvise there won 't be an? trees lefi- Also deer are stripping bark ofyoung trees"- "mewater quality is good- Keep the quanti- ut the past level and let the famers use it, Don 't stan charging for this water. the equbment to imgate costs enough", Appendix 3 - Page 2 1 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS - ELM RIVER - PART A: Background Information Question 1: Which one of the fdlowing categories best appiies to you? (plecrse check only one) Six people (6)responded to this question. The majority of respondents (83%)were land owners andfor operators. Whereas, one respondent belongs to a Hutterite colony . 5 Land owner andor operator 1 Huttente colony Question 2: Specify your site location within the La WeRiver Basin (please see map atîached at the end of the questionnaire for boundanes of the three watersheàs). Six people (6) responded to this question. AU respondents are located in the Upper Sale Watershed . Freauency Restmnse 6 Upper Sale Watershed O Central Sale Watershed O Luwer Sale Watershed Question 3: How many years bave you benliving and/or operating at tbis location? Six people (6)responded to this question. People have lived andfor operated at this location anywhere from six to sixtyeight years. Of these six respondents. 50% have lived and/or operated at this location prior to the constniction of the diversion project in 1984. Freauencv Remonse (# vears) 1 68 1 50 1 40 2 10 1 6 Appendin 3 - Page 22 Question 4: How would you describe your site location? Six (6) peopIe responded to this question. Three of the six respondents operate a fam whik two others lease land and conduct agicultural research- Ako. one respondent belongs to a Hutterite colony. Freci uencv Resmnse 1 Farm O Fmwith major source of income elsewhere 2 Fann with minor source of income elsewhere 1 Huttente colony O Residence oniy 3 Other: kased land fkom land owner Agrïcultural Research Question 5: What type of farming operation do you have? @leuse check al1 thai *y) Six (6) people responded to this question- The majority of respondents indicated that potatoes were grown followed by cereai grains and oilseeds- Two respondents have livestock as part of their farming operation. Freciuencv Resvonse Frea uenc~ Reswnse 4 Potatoes 1 Vegetabies 3 Cereal grains O Forages 3 Oikeds O sod 2 Fruit O Grass Seed 2 Livestock O Nursery 1 Pulse 1 Other. Ag- Research Question 6: What is your typical length of crop rotation? Five (5) people responded to thÏs question- Al1 of respondents indicated a two to three year crop rotation. Frequenc y Resvonse 2 2 Year Rotation 3 3 Year Rotation O 4 Year Rotation O Othec . - 1 Not applicable Appendk 3 - Page 23 0 Question 7: If there is livestock on your farm, how many head of each type are there? (If unsure, estimate using a range e.g.: do,2û-50.50-100, LOe200, etc.) Two (2) people responded to this question. There is a large nunber of Iivestock in close proximity to the Elm River- Freauency Resmnse Number Hogs 7,000 Poultry 8,000 Turkey s 10,000 Dairy Catîle 77 Beef Cattle 306 Other: îaives 100 Not applicable Question 8: What are your sources of water for the foUowing uses? @leuse check dltlicrt ~PP~Y) Six (6) people responded to this question. The majonty of respondents indicated that their main use of river water was for field crop irrigation- AU water uses are listed below. WATER USE River Municimd Well Hauled in Other Domes tic consumption O O 4 O O Field crop ixrigation 5 O O O O Garden irrigation O O 1 O O Lawn watenng O O 1 O O Greenhouse watering O O O O O Livestock watenng O O 2 O O Other (please specifi below) Spwing O O O O O Field Spraying O O O O O Question 9a: Do you pump water to an off-stream storage site such as a dugout? Six (6) people responded to this question. Al1 respondents indicated that they did not have an off-stream storage site- Frea uencv Response ..- O Yes 6 No Appendix 3 - Page 24 PART B: IRRIGATION Question 1: If you know the amount of water applied monthly (in inches), please fiIl out the following table for each crop that you imgated in 1999 and proceed to PART D, otherwise prweed to PART C. Four (4) people responded to this question, indicating that the Elm River was their water source for ïrrigated crops such as potatoes and bemes. # Acres Location Water Applied MontMy in 1999 Crop Name Lrrigated Water Source Of Fiid mches) May June July Aug. Sept. Potatoes 180 EhRiver NE 17-11-6 O O i 2 I Potatoes 120 Elm River SE 16-11-6 O O 120 Potatoes 230 Elm River SW 12-1 1-6 O O 2'2 O SW 14-1 1-6 Potatoes 1200 1 Elm River RM of Portage O 1 2 2 O ~trawberries' 6 1 ElmRiver O 2 2 O O 1. Too muchrainin lm. didn'thveioiniguc, PART C: IRRIGATION Question 1: If you do not kaow the amount of water applied monthly (in inches), please fdl out the foliowing table for each type of irrigation system used in 1999 and proceeà to PART D. Three (3) people responded to this question, indicating the capacity of their irrigation system to determine the approximate amount of water withdrawn fiom the Elm River in 1999. Appendix 3 - Page 25 Irrig. Capac # Water Start End How #Hrs. #Acres Max. System Of Acres Source ilad ~ate' often per per # hrs. ~~stern'~rrig? iscd appïc( applic' used8 Hand Move iinchf4 6 Elm June July 4 16 6 16 hrs- River Trav. Gun 400 130 Elm Juiy 15 Aug.25 4 20hrs- 130 560 River /day Trav. Gun 400 100 Elm July 15 Aug.25 4 one 100 480 River week 1- Gallons per minute unlcss specificd othcrwisc- 2. Total number of acres imgalcd by this systcm in 1999. 3. Date first ïnigatcd with W system in 1999. 4. Date las irrïpccd with ibis system in 1999. 5- On average. how ofteo wu thk systcm used in 1999- 6. Average number of hours if im'ptioa pcr watcr applicatim Ïn 1999- 7. Avmge numbcr of acres imgatcd pcr mtcrappiiutioa in IW- 8- Maximum numbcr of hours this imgatioa sysrem was coaiinually opcrated in 1999. PART D & E: WATER USES OTHER THAN lRRlGATION Question 1: If you know the estimated volume of water withdrawn on a monthly basis for 1999, please N1 out the following table for each water use (other than irrigation) and proceed to PART F, otherwise proceed to PART E. Zero (O) people responded to this question. PART E: WATER USES OTHER TKAN IRRIGATION Question 1: If you cannot estimate the volume of water withdrawn for each water use, please complete the following table if you use groundwater or water direcîly from the river and proceed to PART F. Zero (O) people responded to this question. Appendix 3 - Page 26 PART F: Sunicient Water Supply Question la: Do you currently get enough water from the rivees) at PU required times? Four (4) people responded to this question. Three of the four respondents (75%) who currently use river water indicated that they do receive enough water from the river at all tirnes, However, one rependent indicated chat they did not receive an adequate supply of water at al1 times- Freauency Reswnse Yes No Not applicable Question lb: If No, specify which river@) One (1) person responded to b-squestion- Frequencv Remonse I Elm River Question lc: If No, what month(s) of the year are without suffident water? One (1) people responded to this question- Freauency Reswnse I Iuly & August Question Id: What are tàe causes of insufZicient water during this month(s)? " Pumps shut down due tu electrical storms. Pumps are hardly big enough during the months of July and August to cover imgation needs (no amount of reserve water extra), Question 2a: Do you currently get enough water from the well(s) at aU required times? Three (3) people responded to this question. Two of the respondents who cunently use welt water indicated that they do get enough water from their weils. Whereas, one respondent indicated that they do not get an adequate supply of water. Appendu 3 - Page 27 Yes No Not applicable Question 2b: If No, what monthCs) of the year are without sufficient water? Zero (O) people responded to this question. Question 2c: What are the causes of indficient water during this month(s)? "Sornerimeslow water table"- PART G: Future Irrigation Expansion Question la: Do you plan on irrigating in the future or expanding your existing irrigation operation? Six (6) people responded to this question. The niajority of respondents (83%) indicated that they do intend on Mgating ancilor expanding their existing operation in the future. Yes No Not applicable Question lb: If yes, how many additionai acres do you intend to irrigate? Five (5) people responded to this question. In total, respondents predicted that approximately 1Oûû additional acres would be imgated in the near future. However, one respondent is unsure of the number of additional acres which was not included in the total number of acres. Total Number of Acres: 920-1080 . - Appendix 3 - Page 28 Question lc: What crop(s) do you intend to irrigate? Five (5) people responded to this question- Ail respondents intend on imgating potatoes, However, one of the five respondents indents on using the additional crop productifin for research purposes- Frequencv Response 4 Potatoes 1 Other: Potatoes for research purposes Question Id: What type of irrigation equipment do you plan to use? Five (5) people responded to this question- The majority ofrespondents are planning on using travelling guns. Frequency Resmnse 3 Travelling gun 1 Travelling gun or Pivot 1 Pivot Question le: What water sources do you intend to use? Five (5) people responded to this question. The majority of respondents indicated that their water source for imgation wouid be fiom the Elm River, however one respondent indicated groundwater as theu source. Freauency Reswnse 4 EhRiver O La Salle River O Mill Creek 1 Groundwater O Hauled in O Municipal Question If. When do you think you will instaU or expand your irrigation system? Four (4) people responded to this question. Al1 of the respondents indicated that, they will install or expand their irrigation system within five years. Appendix 3 - Page 29 Frequency Resmnse O Within 1 year 1 Within 2 years 3 Within 3 to 5 years O Over 5 years PART H: Water Quality Cornparison Question la: Since you have iived or worked in the La Salle Rivet Bash area since nt least -91983 bow do you rate the quality of the current water as compad to the onginai water quality prior to construction of the Diversion Project in 1984? (pieuse check oll thaî apply). Three (3) people responded to this question. Two of the theresponden~ felt that the water quality of the Elm River had improved since the development of the Diversion Project in 1984. Whereas, the remaining respondent indicated that the water quality remaineci the same- Elm River: Fmuencv Response Much Better Better Same Worse Much Worse Two (2) people responded to this question. One respondent indicated that the quality of the well water had impmved, whereas the other respondent felt that the water had remained the same. Weli Water: Freauenc~ Much Better Better Same Worse Much Worse Appendù 3 - Page 30 Question lb: PIease describe what lead to the changing conditions. Comments frcn resvondents who felt conditions improved since 1984: "Due zo more water" "There is water in the Elm River dl the time now. previous tu the diversion, I sometimes iind ta imgatefiom potholes"- PART 1: Water Quality Since the construction of the Diversion Roject in 1984, there has been very little documentation of impacts that may have occurred as a dhct or indirect result of the Diversion Project. For the purpose of this survey, an impact is defmed as "a change in a pa..-----ter. over a specified petid and within a defmed awi, resulting fiom a particular activity compared with the situation which would have occurred had- the activity not been initiated" (Wathern, 1988). Question la: In your opinion, bas tbe diversion bad any positive impacts on fish, wildlife, vegetation, soils, socid (emgmrecreation, etc.), economic, or other? Five (5) people responded to this question. Responses wece diverse cove~gal1 areas of impact except for fish, soils, and social issues. Fish Wildlife Vegetation Soils Social Economic Unsure Question Ib: PIease describe in detail aay positive impacts noted. "lncreasein crop yields ami quality " "The dependable supply of water aîtracts an abundance of wildlijie, especially birds- Since the diversion was constructed, high value fiit and vegetable produce has increased". "Made land more consistantly productive, berter crops ". Appendü 3 - Page 3 1 Question 2a: In your opinion, has the diversion bad aoy neeative impacts on: Five (5) people responded to this question- Only one respondent indicated negative impacts on social issues- The rernaining four of the five respondents indicated either none or unsure of any negative impacts as a result of the diversion project- Fish Wildlife Vegetatioa Soils Social Econornic None unsure Question 2b: Please describe in detaiï below any negative impacts noteü. "Now a few users figure that they should keep everyboùy away but themelves"- Question 2c: Can you suggest any ways of correcting the situation(s)? Zero (0) people responded to this question- Question 3: How wouid you rate the overail quality of water from the foilowing sources: Five (5) people responded to this question- Al1 of the respondents rat& the overail water quality average or better than average- Elm River: Freauencv Resmnse Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Not applicable Four (4) people responded to this question- Three of the four respondents rated the overall water quality of wells above average, whereas one respondent rated the water quality as poor. Appendu: 3 - Page 32 Weii Water: Very Gd Good Average Poor Very Poor Not applicable Question 4: If you judge the EhRiver water quaiity as poor, how would you dcsrribe its characteristics in terms of the foliowing factors @leose check on& those th& ~PP~Y)* Zero (O) people responded to this question. Question 5: If you judge the river water qusiity as poot, when docs this occur? @leose check al1 that apply): Zero (O) people responded to this question. Question 6: If you judge the water qdtyfmm (bc Elm River as poor, how wodd you describe its characteristics in te- of the foilowing factors @leuse check only those that appiy): Two (2) people responded to this question. Both respondents indicated hardness as being a characteristic of poor weii water quality- Frea uency Reswnse Cloudiness Colour Odour Hardness Alkalkty (pH) Saiinity Taste Not applicable Question 7: If you judge the water quaüty as pot, when does this occur? Two (2) people responded to this question. One of the two respondents indicated that well water was poor in quality al1 the time. whereas other respondents indicated fa11 and winter months- AppendUc 3 - Page 33 - 1 Ai1 the time O Sprïng (Mach-May) O Surnmer (June-August) 1 Fa11 (Sept-Novcmber) 1 Wuiter 1 Not applicable Question 8a:. Please indicite any concerns you may have with water quality along the La Salle River, Elm River and/or Mill Creek. "Weil water quality (i.e. hnrdness) was a problem long before the diversion wus cunstmcted ", "Keep the Assiniboine River water quulity good and there will be no problems ". Question 8b: In refereaa to question #?Ba), cao you suggat any ways of correcting the situationts)? 'The wuter quality cm be improved wifh an Non filfer und sofmer". Question 9: if you us the La Salie River, EhRiver, dorMüI Cmkfor recreatioml purposcg pkisc indiute which river(s) @&use check oll thut @y). Three (3) people responded to this question. One of the three nspondents indicated using the Elm River for recreational purposes. Freguencv Reswnse 1 Elm River O La Salle River O Mill Creek 2 None Question 10: If you use the river(s) for recreational purposes, what for? (pleuse check oll hfoppw Zero (O) people responded to this question. Appendir 3 - Page 34 Canoeing Boating Swimming Fishing Cross country skiing Snowmobiling Ice Skating Other: tobogganing Not applicable Question lla: How would you rate the overaii condition of the river(s) for mreationai purposes? Zero (O) people responded to this question. Question llb: If conditions are poor, during what times of tôe year? Zero (O) people tesponded to this question- Question llc: If conditions arc poor, please describe these conditions and spcdly what river(s): Zero (O) people responded to this question. Question lld: If conditions are poor, cmyou suggest any ways of correcting the situation(s)? "Keep the Assiniboine river waier quality good and there wifl be no problemc". Question 12: In your opinion, does the condition or water qudity of the river(s) affect recreational use? Two (2) people responded to this question indicating that they were unsure if water quality effects recreational use- O Yes O No 2 Unsure Appendix 3 - Page 35 Question 13a: Do you feel that more environmental conservation efforts are needed to preserve and protect the Im Salle River Basin as part ofa heaithy ecosystem? Two (2) people responded to this question- One respondent strongly apesthat more conservation efforts are needed, whereas the other respondent remained neutral- 1 Strongly agree O A@== 1 Neutral O Disagree O Strongly Disagree Question 13b: If you agree, wbat actions do you feel could be taken to preserve and protect strearn and river flows? "Effortsshould be made to reclaim the riparian zone- Agriculturd activiîy takes place right up to the Stream bank Forages or trees should be planted to reclaim at least 75-100 feet of the npan-an zone"- "Stop people fiom dumping their garbage into the rivers, especially old cook stoves, etc." "lt seems O-K. ar presenr ". Question 14a: If you lived in the La WeRiver Basin prior to the deveiopment of the AssiniMine-La Salle River Diversion Project ia 1983, were you involved at any point in the planning stages of the project? (please check any that apply): I Zero (O) people responded to this question. 2 Not applicable O No O Survey questionnaire O Other involvement Question 14b: Were you involvecl in any monitoring programs after completion of the Diversion praject in 19842 (please check any that apply): Zero (O) people responded to this question. pp AppendU: 3 - Page 36 2 Not applicable O No O Yes Question 14c: If No, would you lïke to take part in a monitoring program? Zero (O) people responded to this question- Question 15: Please provide any additionai comments or concerns you may have witb the current conditions along the La SdeRivet, EhRiver, andlor Mill Creek (in terms of water quBlity, wakr qmntity, adorwater use activities). "The increasedflow is improving the river overal2"-