the report of the international garrison diversion study board is · 2013-05-10 · will increase...

The report of the International Garrison Diversion Study Board is

bound in six volumes as follows:

REPORT

APPENDIX A - WATER QUALITYAPPENDIX B - WATER QUANTITYAPPENDIX C - BIOLOGYAPPENDIX D - USESAPPENDIX E - ENGINEERING

INTERNATIONAL GARRISON DIVERSION STUDY BOARD

APPENDIX E

ENGINEERING

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

DECEMBER 1, 1976


ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

Winnipeg, Canada B i l l i n g s , U . S . A .

December 1, 1 9 7 6

The Chairmen , In te rna t iona l Garr i son Divers ion S tudy Board Bi l l ings , Montana , U . S . A . Ot tawa, Ontar io , Canada

Gentlemen:

The Engineering Committee has completed i t s s t u d i e s a n d he rewi th submi t s i t s r e p o r t . The report , Appendix E-Enginleering, c o n s i s t s o f a main r e p o r t a n d f i v e a t t a c h m e n t s .

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,

2Ld hairman) F. Hunt ( U . S . Co-Chairman)

U . S . Bureau of Reclamation Winnipeg, Manitoba Bi l l ings, Montana

G . D . Balacko, Manitoba Environmental Management

Winnipeg, Manitoba D i v i s i o n

J. B a t h u r s t & Environmental Management S e r v i c e , Ottawa, Ontario

v T. J . Dafoe (Canadian Secretary) Env i ronmen ta l P ro tec t ion Se rv ice Winnipeg, Manitoba

U.S. Envi ronmenta l Pro tec t ion

Denver, Colorado Agency

(" ', ,, j":

D. D. Schulz N . D . S t a t e Water Commission Bismarck, North Dakota

L. Kowalski U. S . Army Corps of Engineers S t . Padl. Minnesota

- P . L . Balkan (U.S. S e c r e t a r y ) U.S. So i l Conse rva t ion Service Bismarck, North Dakota

i

SUMMARY

The Engineering Committee had two m a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The f i r s t was t o p r o v i d e e n g i n e e r i n g s e r v i c e s t o t h e B o a r d a n d i t s o t h e r c o m m i t t e e s . T h i s i n c l u d e d a n s w e r i n g t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n s , o b t a i n i n g p r o j e c t i n f o r m a t i o n , d e v e l o p i n g new d a t a , e v a l u a t i n g t e c h n i c a l c o n c e p t s , p r e p a r i n g c o s t estimates, and , i n g e n e r a l , g i v i n g e n g i n e e r i n g a d v i c e t o o t h e r g r o u p s i n v o l v e d i n t h e G a r r i s o n S t u d y . Its second t a sk was t o i d e n t i f y a n d e x a m i n e p o s s i b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n s , a l t e r a t i o n s o r a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e a u t h o r i z e d GDU plan a imed a t e l i m i n a t i n g o r r e d u c i n g u n d e s i r a b l e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e f f e c t s o f t h e p r o j e c t .

h p r i m a r y c o n c e r n h a s b e e n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e t r a n s f e r of f i s h a n d r e l a t e d b i o t a f r o m t h e M i s s o u r i R i v e r d r a i n a g e b a s i n t o t h e Hudson Bay d r a i n a g e b a s i n . I n t h i s r e g a r d , two b a s i c a c t i v i t i e s were under taken . In coopera t ion wi th the Bio logy Commit tee , a d e t a i l e d s t u d y was made o f t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e McClusky C a n a l f i s h s c r e e n s t r u c t u r e w h i c h , as a u t h o r i z e d i s i n t e n d e d t o b e t h e master b a r r i e r t o i n t e r - b a s i n t r a n s f e r s . The s tudy r evea led o r con f i rmed a number of a r e a s w h e r e m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o i t s design would enhance i t s u s e f u l n e s s as a b a r r i e r . Some o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a t were considered would make o t h e r s r e d u n d a n t ; t h e s e l e c t e d o n e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s r e p o r t , however , would toge ther represent a p r a c t i c a l means of making t h i s s c r e e n i n g f a c i l i t y m o r e e f f e c t i v e . The o t h e r a c t i v i t y was t o i d e n t i f y and f i nd means o f e l imina t ing any d i r ec t su r f ace water connec t ions be tween the Missour i and Hudson Bay w a t e r s h e d s . T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d t o a f e a s i b l e p r o p o s a l i n v o l v i n g s t o r a g e a n d pumping works t o c o l l e c t a n d r e - u s e o p e r a t i o n a l w a s t e w a t e r f l o w s f r o m t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m , s a n d f i l t r a t i o n o f m u n i c i p a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l w a t e r s u p p l i e d by GDU, r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r 400 c f s o u t l e t w o r k s f r o m the Sheyenne River t o t h e N i s s o u r i B a s i n , a n d w o r k s t o e n s u r e t h a t there would no t be an exchange of waters from the Devi ls Lake Basin t o t h e Pembina River Basin near Rock Lake in Nor th Dakota .

S e v e r a l major i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t i n o r d e r t o answer spec i f ic ques t ions posed by o ther commit tees . These inc luded: a de t e rmina t ion o f t he suspended s ed imen t l oad ings i n t he Sour i s , Ass in i - boine and Red R i v e r s i n C a n a d a , b o t h h i s t o r i c a l l y a n d w i t h GDU, and o f t he r e su l t i ng add i t iona l annua l s ed imen t l oad ings i n to Lakes Winn ipeg and Manitoba due to GDU; a n e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e p r o b a b l e i n c r e a s e i n channel bank and channel bed e ros ion tha t would resu l t f rom GDU and of t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f s u c h i n c r e a s e d e r o s i o n o n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s ; and a s t u d y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i n c r e a s e i n water t r e a t m e n t c o s t s , f o r C a n a d i a n m u n i c i p a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l u s e r s a l o n g t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e and Red R i v e r s , t h a t w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m c h a n g e s i n water q u a l i t y c a u s e d by GDU.

A number of p o s s i b l e m e t h o d s o f r e d u c i n g o r e l i m i n a t i n g t h e nega t ive impact o f GDU r e t u r n f l o w s o n t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e water i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r were explored . The Commi t t ee de t e rmined t he f eas ib i l i t y

iii

of altering the area to be irrigated in the Souris Area so that it would include a smaller proportion of the more highly saline lands. It was found that a reduction in the acreage of saline lands to be included in the irrigated area could be readily achieved, with a corres- ponding improvement in the quality of the return flow from this region. Examination of the quality of the various components of the irrigation flow from the Souris Area indicated that seepage from glacial till sections of the Velva Canal would contribute a significant TDS loading to the return flows. Accordingly, the Engineering Committee examined and prepared cost estimates for a proposal to provide a membrane lining of the canal. On the other hand, investigation of a proposal to reduce the TDS concentration in the Souris River to pre-project levels by diluting the river flow with water diverted directly from the Velva Canal was found to be impractical.

A method of virtually eliminating the incremental flood damage that would be caused by GDU along the Souris River between the Inter- national Boundary and Hartney in Ilanitoba, was studied by the Committee. This involved enlarging the river channel so that it could carry the additional return flows without significantly affecting water levels in the river.

The alternatives presented in this report are not meant to be all inclusive. Due to time constraints, it was necessary in some instances to select a plan which could be readily evaluated in terms of engineering feasibility and cost. The significant point in each alternative is the concept involved, recognizing that further study may produce a better and more economical plan.

Early in its activities, the Committee requested and obtained from the USBR a draft of its report entitled "Alternative Investigations - Souris Section". This was studied by the Committee, its concepts were considered in the Committee's deliberations and a summary of it is included.

The Engineering Committee's findings are as follows:

1. The fish screen on the XcClusky Canal, as authorized, can be modified to increase its effectiveness as a barrier to the transfer of fish, fish eggs and larvae. Estimated costs of the modifications, exclusive of structural alterations, are $2,000,000.

2. A concept to prevent direct surface water connections between the Missouri River watershed and the Hudson Bay watershed has been identified. It included:

i) Elimination of wasteway return flows from the irrigation system by storage and their use for irrigation. Estimated cost - $22,000,000.

iv

i i ) Sand f i l t r a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s f o r a l l m u n i c i p a l , i n d u s t r i a l and s t reamflow augmenta t ion d ivers ions . Es t imated cos t - $11,000,000.

i i i ) M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e d e s i g n of Lonetree Dam t o e l i m i n a t e t h e 400 c f s low leve l r e s e r v o i r e v a c u a t i o n f a c i l i t y t o t h e Sheyenne River . Est imated cost - up t o $26,000,000 depending on o p t i o n s e l e c t e d .

iV) P rov i s ion of works a t Rock Lake in Nor th Dakota t o e n s u r e no flows between Rock Lake and Devils Lake. E s t i - mated cost - $20,000.

3 . a ) A l t h o u g h t h e s u s p e n d e d s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e , a n d Red R i v e r s w i l l no t change , the average annual suspended loads w i l l i n c r e a s e as f o l l o w s :

Loca t ion

Average Annual I n c r e a s e

(Tons) X I n c r e a s e

Sour i s R ive r a t Wes thope 3,600 55

Ass in iboine River ups t ream of P o r t a g e l a Prair ie 28,700 4

Red River a t Emerson 7 , 000 1

Ked R i v e r a t S e l k i r k 1 9 , 2 0 0 1

b) The i n c r e a s e i n s u s p e n d e d s e d i m e n t l o a d on t h e s e r i v e r s w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e t o t a l a n n u a l l o a d of suspended sediment to Lake Mani- toba by 2,000 t o n s o r two percent and to Lake Winnipeg by 19,200 t o n s o r one percent.

c) Eros ion w i l l be conf ined to channel banks and no a d d i t i o n a l stream bottom scour as a r e s u l t o f GDU is expec ted .

d) Return f lows f rom GDU w i l l r e s u l t i n a modes t increase i n t h e ra te o f b a n k e r o s i o n i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r . Any increased bank e r o s i o n i n t h e Red and Ass in ibo ine R ive r s w i l l be masked by t h e e x i s t i n g e r o s i o n p r o c e s s .

4 . a ) The i n c r e a s e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c h e m i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e a n d Red R i v e r s w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g a n n u a l i n c r e m e n t a l water t r e a t m e n t c o s t s f o r t h e p e a k i m p a c t p e r i o d :

V

Increased Annual C o s t t o U t i l i z e I n c r e a s e d A n n u a l E x i s t i n g Treat- Cos t to Produce ment F a c i l i t i e s M u n i c i p a l Water

Community t o Maximum C a p a b i l i t y of E x i s t i n g Q u a l i t y $ $

Sour i s 16,800 175,600

P o r t a g e l a P r a i r i e 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , 1 8 3 , 3 0 0

Emerson 700 28,300

Mor r i s 1 ,700 51,000

S t . J e a n B a p t i s t e 600 15,900

Se lk i rk 10 ,000 441 ,200

b) The i n c r e a s e i n c.hemica1 c o s t d u e t o GDU f o r t h e t h e r m a l e l ec t r i c p l a n t a t S e l k i r k w i l l vary f rom $2 ,700 to $11 ,400 annual ly depend ing on t he pe rcen tage o f t he time t h a t t h e p l a n t w i l l be u sed t o provide energy for Manitoba Hydro 's system. An a d d i t i o n a l c a p i t a l expend i tu re o f $800 ,000 fo r water t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be r equ i r ed .

c ) The t o t a l a n n u a l c o s t o f p r o v i d i n g t h e m a j o r r u r a l d o m e s t i c u s e r s a l o n g t h e A s s i n i b o i n e R i v e r w i t h a water o f e x i s t i n g q u a l i t y was e s t ima ted t o be $25 ,000 .

d) There are groundwater sources tha t can be deve loped to p r o v i d e a l t e r n a t e water s u p p l i e s f o r t h e Town o f Sour i s and t he C i ty of P o r t a g e l a P r a i r i e .

5 . S e l e c t i o n o f l a n d s t o b e i r r i g a t e d i n t h e S o u r i s A r e a so as t o a v o i d s a l i n e s o i l a s f a r as p o s s i b l e i s a f e a s i b l e means of improving t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e r e t u r n f l o w t o t h e S o u r i s R i v e r . A r e d u c t i o n i n TDS i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r o f u p t o 1 2 p e r c e n t c a n b e a c h i e v e d . The c o s t i s e s t i m a t e d t o b e i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

6. Membrane l i n i n g of t h e e n t i r e V e l v a C a n a l o r o n l y i n t h o s e areas where the Canal i s e x c a v a t e d i n g l a c i a l till would reduce the TDS i n ' t h e r e t u r n f l o w t o t h e S o u r i s River by up t o 18 p e r c e n t . I n e i t h e r c a s e t h e n e t e s t i m a t e d c o s t i s $14,000,000.

7 . I nc remen ta l f l ood ing a long t he Sour i s R ive r t ha t would r e s u l t from GDU r e t u r n f l o w s c o u l d b e e l i m i n a t e d b y e n l a r g i n g t h e r i v e r c h a n n e l from Westhope to Har tney . Th i s i s e s t ima ted t o cos t $5 ,800 ,000 and would r e q u i r e t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f 2 , 0 0 0 acres o f l and .

v i

8. Three alternatives to prevent fish migration via the Kindschi Lake Fish and Wildlife Development Area turnout are; improving the effectiveness of the fish screen, providing a sand filter, 01: eliminating the turnout.

9. The increase in frequency of overflow from the Portage Diversion into the Delta Marsh, due to GDU, will be negligible.

LO. Several suggested concepts for modifying GDU are not feasible for various technical reasons. These are:

i) Ozonation, sand filtration, microscreening and a screen- pump system as alternative biological barriers in the McClusky Canal.

ii) Dilution of the Souris River with Velva Canal water as a method of reducing TDS concentrations to pre-project levels.

iii) Raising the existing Dakota Lake Dam, or construction of a canal from Jamestown Reservoir to the Oakes Area, as alternative methods of eliminating inter-basin fish transfers in this area.

vii

APPENDIX E . ENGINEERING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .................................... SUMMARY .................................................. TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ LIST OF PLATES ........................................... LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... LIST OF TABLES ........................................... LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ...................................... I . INTRODUCTION ........................................

A . Explanation of Problem ......................... B . History of International Discussions ........... C . Terms of Reference ............................. D . Study Board .................................... E . Directive to the Study Board ................... F . Public Hearings ................................ G . Study Organization ............................. H . Time and Data Constraints ......................

I1 . DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT A . Physical Features .............................. B . Social Features ................................ C . The Garrison Diversion Unit ....................

111 . PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................. A . Pqblic Concerns . . . . ........................... B . Engineering ....................................

IV . ENGINEERING COMMITTEE ............................... A . Membership and Affiliation ..................... B . Directive ...................................... C . Approach ....................................... D . Summary of Meetings .............................

V . ENGINEERING COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS ................ A . Transfers of Fish ..............................

1 . Fish Migration and Transfer Routes ......... 2 . Prevention of Fish Transfer ................

a) Barrier Concept ......................... b) Elimination of Routes ...................

i iii ix xi xi xii xiii

7 7 9 10

15 15 1 7

1 9 19 20 20 2 3

25 25 25 29 29 40

ix

B.

C .

D.

E .

Water Q u a l i t y .................................. 1. E f f e c t of GDU Return Flows on Sediment

T ranspor t .................................. 2 . Reduct ion of Propor t ion of S a l i n e S o i l s i n

t h e S o u r i s Area ............................ 3. Lining of Velva Canal ...................... 4 . D i l u t i o n of S o u r i s River by Velva Canal

Water ...................................... Water S u p p l i e s ................................. 1. Water Treatment Costs ...................... 2 . A l t e r n a t e Water S u p p l i e s ................... Water Q u a n t i t y ................................. 1. Flood Damage Reduct ion on the Sour i s River 2 . Frequency o f Overf low f rom Portage Diversion

To Delta Marsh ............................. 3. E f f e c t o f GDU Return F lows on His tor ica l and

Archaeologica l Resources ................... Summary o f USBR Repor t on Al te rna t ive I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , S o u r i s Area ....................

V I . MODIFICATIONS, ALTERATIONS, OR ADJUSTMENTS TO GDU PLAN 1. M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e McClusky Canal Fish Screen 2 . E l imina t ion o f Su r face Water Connections Between

3 . R e d u c t i o n o f P r o p o r t i o n o f S a l i n e S o i l s i n t h e S o u r i s Area .....................................

4. Lin ing o f Velva Canal ........................... 5. Combination .....................................

Missour i River Watershed and Hudson Bay Watershed

PAGE

5 1

5 1

53 60

62 63 63 67 70 70

7 2

7 2

76

85 85

85

90 90 90

X

L I S T OF PLATES

P l a t e

E- 1 R e f e r e n c e Map

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

F i g u r e

E-1 Block Diagram Showing Movement o f Water 2 7 From a P r o j e c t Canal t o a Rece iv ing S t r eam.

E- 2 F i s h S c r e e n as C u r r e n t l y D e s i g n e d b y t h e 31 U n i t e d S t a t e s B u r e a u o f Rec lama t ion .

E- 3 T y p i c a l Wastewater S t o r a g e Pond and Pumping 4 3 P l a n t .

E- 4 S o u r i s Area - D i s t r i b u t i o n of Class "A" Lands. 55

E- 5 T y p i c a l C r o s s - S e c t i o n - S o u r i s River V a l l e y 7 3 between Westhope and Har tney .

x i

LIST OF TABLES

Table

E- 1

E- 2

E- 3

E- 4

E- 5

E- 6

E- 7

E- 8

E- 9

E-10

E-11

E-12

E-13

E-14

E-15

Garr i son Divers ion Uni t Cons t ruc t ion Schedule

O p e r a t i o n a l Waste Flows

Storage and Reuse of O p e r a t i o n a l Wastewater - P r o j e c t i o n of Cap i t a l and 0 6 M c o s t s .

Average Annual Sediment Load and Concen t r a t ions fo r "Benchmark" s t a t i o n s .

Authorized Plan - Acreage Assignment by Master S i t e s i n e a c h o f t h e I r r i g a t i o n Districts.

A l t e r n a t e P l a n I - Acreage Assignment by Master S i t e s i n e a c h o f t h e I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s .

A l t e r n a t e P l a n I1 - Acreage Assignment by Master S i t e s i n e a c h of t h e I r r i g a t i o n Districts.

Comparison o f A l t e r n a t e P l a n s I & I1 w i t h O r i g i n a l P l a n i n r e g a r d t o A c r e a g e A s s i g n e d b y I r r i g a t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

Water Trea tment Cos ts for Munic ipa l & I n d u s t r i a l Users - Peak Impact

Water Trea tment Cos ts for Munic ipa l & I n d u s t r i a l Users - Equi l ibr ium.

Water Treatment Costs for Rural Domest ic Users.

Page

14

4 5

47

52

5 7

58

59

60

64

65

67

Water Qual i ty o f Sour i s River and Proposed Aqui fer . 68

Water Qual i ty Compar ison of Present and Al te rna te 6 9 Water S u p p l i e s -- P o r t a g e l a P r a i r i e .

Cost Summary f o r A l t e r n a t e W a t e r S u p p l i e s -- 70 P o r t a g e l a P r a i r i e

Summary Evalua t ion of I n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f P o s s i b l e 86 M o d i f i c a t i o n s , A l t e r a t i o n s o r A d j u s t m e n t s t o G . D . U .

x i i

L I S T OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment

E- 1 Engineering Committee Plan of Study

E- 2 Nine Technical Questions and Answers re: McClusky Canal Fish Screen

E- 3 Sediment Rat ing Curves and Increased Sediment Load Tables

E-4 Velva Canal Diversion Flows Required to Restore Pre-Proj ect TDS C o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n Sour i s R ive r

E-5 P lan of S o u r i s River Showing Plan of Archaeologica l S i t e s and Designat ions.

x i i i

I INTRODUCTION

A. Explanation of Problem

The Government of Canada concluded that waters flowing from t h e G a r r i s o n D i v e r s i o n U n i t (GDU) i n t o t h e S o u r i s and Red R i v e r s i n t h e United States and subsequen t ly i n to Canada , wou ld cause i n ju ry t o hea l th and property in Canada and would contravene Article I V of the Boundary Waters T r e a t y of 1909. C o n c e r n s r e l a t e d p r i m a r i l y t o t h e q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y of t h e water e n t e r i n g Canada and t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of f o r e i g n b i o t a .

A s p lanned , t he GDU i n v o l v e s a t r a n s f e r of water f rom the M i s s o u r i River f o r i r r i g a t i o n , f i s h a n d w i l d l i f e d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d m u n i c i p a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l u s e i n t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n s of t h e James, S o u r i s and Red Rivers. A p o r t i o n o f t h i s t r a n s f e r r e d water w i l l e n t e r t h e Sour i s and Red Rivers as re tu rn f l ow f rom i r r iga t ed l ands , s eepage f rom impoundments and conveyance ditches, and as ef f luent f rom munic ipa l and i n d u s t r i a l waste t reatment systems. These f lows w i l l then en ter Canada mixed with water of t h e S o u r i s a n d Red Rivers.

The pr imary concern with water q u a n t i t y re la tes t o f l o o d i n g . In Canada f l ood ing can occu r occas iona l ly on t he Red and Ass in iboine Rivers d u r i n g p e r i o d s of ex t remely h igh f low. On p a r t s of t h e S o u r i s River f l o o d i n g o c c u r s n e a r l y e v e r y y e a r , a n d h e r e t h e a d d i t i o n of GDU water could increase the amount and f requency of f looding .

The concerns with water q u a l i t y i n c l u d e i n c r e a s e s i n s u s p e n d e d s o l i d s , increases i n d i s s o l v e d sal ts and heavy metals, and other changes i n water q u a l i t y r e s u l t i n g f r o m GDU. Concentrat ions of suspended and d i s s o l v e d materials are i n c r e a s e d b y e v a p o r a t i o n a n d t r a n s p i r a t i o n i n s u r f a c e c h a n n e l s a n d r e s e r v o i r s . A s i r r i g a t i o n water i s a p p l i e d t o fa rmland, i t may pick up more suspended sol ids and i t may i n c r e a s e i n b o t h level and range of c h e m i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t s b e c a u s e of t h e c o n t a c t w i t h c h e m i c a l a d d i t i v e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n t e n s i v e c r o p p r o d u c t i o n . W i t h i r r i g a t i o n , a p o r t i o n of t h e a p p l i e d water may l e a c h t h r o u g h t h e s o i l . The l e a c h water o f t e n c o n t a i n s h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s of d i s s o l v e d sal ts as a r e s u l t o f t h e salts p r e s e n t i n t h e s o i l b e i n g b r o u g h t i n t o s o l u t i o n w i t h f u r t h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h e s o l u t i o n b y t r a n s p i r a t i o n o f water f rom growing p lan ts and evapora t ion of water f r o m t h e s o i l s u r f a c e . Munic ipa l and i ndus t r i a l u ses and f i sh and w i ld l i f e deve lopmen t s may a l s o a d d c o n t a m i n a n t s t o t h e water. It c a n b e r e a s o n a b l y a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t GDU waters w i l l b e s u b j e c t e d t o a l l of these sources o f contaminat ion .

The GDU c o u l d a f f e c t f i s h and w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s i n Canada. I n a d d i t i o n t o c h a n g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l t e r e d water q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y , t h e r e i s t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e p o t e n t i a l t r a n s f e r of f o r e i g n b i o t a f r o m t h e Missour i River i n t o t h e Hudson Bay Dra inage th rough the water conveyance s y s t e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e GDU. F i s h , f i s h d i s e a s e s , f i s h p a r a s i t e s a n d o t h e r b i o t a p r e s e n t i n M i s s o u r i River water cou ld ga in access n o t

1

o n l y t:o t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e a n d Red R i v e r s , b u t a l s o t o L a k e s Winnipeg and Mani toba and the r ivers en te r ing and leav ing these l akes . There i s a l s o a p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of o the r b io t a wh ich c o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g a q u a t i c s y s t e m s o r c a u s e diseases i n t h e p l a n t s , a n i m a l s o r humans u s i n g t h e water.

B . H i s t o r y of I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i s c u s s i o n s

Dur ing the la te 1950 ' s and ea r ly 1960 ' s , r ep resen ta t ives f rom the Un i t ed States Bureau o f Rec lama t ion P ro jec t s Of f i ce a t Bismarck were members of P J C S tudy Boards o r p rov ided i n fo rma t ion t o t he In t e rna t iona l J o i n t Commiss ion ( I JC) on i r r iga t ion pro jec ts and water q u a l i t y on t h e S o u r i s , Red and Pembina River Basins. The planning procedures employed f o r t h e p r o p o s e d GDU were used as t h e b a s i s f o r some o f t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d i e s . A s a r e s u l t , t h e r e w a s an exchange o f t echn ica l i n fo rma t ion between Canadian and United States personnel .

C o n g r e s s i o n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e GDU w a s enac ted i n 1965 and Canad ian conce rns r ega rd ing t he e f f ec t s were c r y s t a l i z e d i n a n o t e t o t h e Government of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s e a r l y i n 1969. Subsequent ly , on the bas i s of repor t s p repared by the Bureau of Reclamation, (USBR) Canada submitted a d i p l o m a t i c n o t e e x p r e s s i n g c o n c e r n s r e l a t i v e t o t h e p o s s i b l e i m p a c t s o n q u a n t i t y a n d q u a l i t y o€ water i n t h e S o u r i s and Red R i v e r s , a n d t h e p o s s i b l e i n t r o d u c t i o n of f o r e i g n f i s h species, parasites, a n d f i s h d i s e a s e s .

hc reas ing Canad ian conce rns abou t GDU l e d t o a note forwarded t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n O c t o b e r , 1973, r e q u e s t i n g a moratorium on ... a l l f u r t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e G a r r i s o n D i v e r s i o n U n i t u n t i l a m u t u a l l y a c c e p t a b l e s o l u t i o n f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e C a n a d i a n i n t e r e s t s , under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, w a s ach ieved ." In i t s r e p l y t o t h e n o t e i n F e b r u a r y , 1 9 7 4 , t h e g o v e r n m e n t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s t a t e d i t recognized i t s o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r Article TV of t h e Boundary Waters T r e a t y and no construction affecting Canada would be undertaken u n t i l i t w a s clear t h a t t h i s o b l i g a t i o n would be m e t .

I 1

During 1974., several b i n a t i o n a l m e e t i n g s of o E f i c i a l s were h e l d t o d i s c u s s a n d c l a r i f y t h e Canadi.an concerns over porrential d e g r a d a t i o n o f water q u a l i t y a n d i t s e f f e c t s on hea l th and p rope r ty i n Canada; and the United S ta tes r e sponse t o t he conce rns . In .January, 1975, a t a m e e t i n g o f s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s f r o m b o t h c o u n t r i e s , t h e two s i d e s a g r e e d t o recommend t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t s s e l e c t a n a p p r o p r i a t e mechanism t o under- take a jo in t examina t ion of c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f , o r a d j u s t m e n t s t o , t h e p r o j e c t t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Art ic le IV of the Boundary Waters T r e a t y are honored.

2

C . Terms of Reference

On October 2 2 , 1975 the Governments of Canada and the Un i t ed S t a t e s r e f e r r e d t o t h e IJC t h e matter of p o t e n t i a l p o l l u t i o n of boundary waters b y t h e GDU. The R e f e r e n c e a s k s t h e Commission t o examine and r e p o r t on:

1. t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e of water q u a l i t y i n t h e S o u r i s and Red R i v e r s , t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s and other downstream waters, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e C a n a d i a n p o r t i o n s w h i c h m i g h t b e a f f e c t e d by the GDU;

2 . t h e p r e s e n t u s e s a n d r e a s o n a b l y a n t i c i p a t e d u s e s of t h e s e waters;

3 . t h e e f f e c t s of p r e s e n t water q u a l i t y o n t h e s e u s e s ;

4 . t h e i m p a c t s on t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of t h e s e waters r e su l t i ng f rom comple t ion and o p e r a t i o n of t h e GDU;

5. t he impac t s of t he comple r ion and ope ra t ion o f t he GDU on p resen t u ses and on r easonab ly an t i c ipa t ed u ses of t h e s e waters;

6 . t he impac t on commerc ia l and r ec rea t iona l f i she r i e s i n Manitoba of t h e p o s s i b l e i n t r o d u c t i o n by t h e GDU, of f o r e i g n s p e c i e s of f i s h , f i s h d i s e a s e s and f i s h p a r a s i t e s ;

In a d d i t i o n , t h e R e f e r e n c e s t a t e d t h a t i f t h e Commission should make any r ecommenda t ions t o r e l i eve o r avo id any adve r se e f fec ts on uses in Canada , the Commiss ion should ind ica te the approximate cos t of t hese measu res . A copy of t h e f u l l t e x t of t he Re fe rence i s inc luded i n Annex 1.

D . Study Board

The IJC, on October 2 3 , 1 9 7 5 , e s t a b l i s h e d t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l G a r r i s o n D i v e r s i o n S t u d y B o a r d t o i n v e s t i g a t e i n t o and a d v i s e on, a l l matters which the Commission must consider in i t s r e p o r t t o t h e Govern- ments under the Reference of October 2 2 , 1975. The 12 board members and two s e c r e t a r i e s a re members of one of t h e f o l l o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s :

U n i t e d S t a t e s Canada

U. S. Envi ronmenta l Pro tec t ion Agency Economic Counci l of Canada U. S . Department of Agricul ture Agricul ture Canada U . S . Department of the Army Environment Canada U. S . Department of t h e I n t e r i o r Manitoba Department of M i n n e s o t a P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Agency Mines, Resources and Nor th Dako ta S t a t e Un ive r s i ty Environmental EInnagernent

All board members are closely involved with natural resources in one or more of the following areas: general management, research, development and planning. Professional backgrounds are in engineering, public administration, agricultural and biological sciences, and economics.

E. Directive to Study Board \

In its directive dated October 30, 1975, the Commission instructed the Board to advise on the transboundary implications of the proposed completion and operation of the GDU and to report on all matters identified in the Terms of Reference. The Board was asked to prepare a plan of study including provisions for public participation, to provide periodic progress reports to the Commission, and to submit a final report to the Commission by August 15, 1976. The Directive instructions,

I?. Public Hearings

The Commission held public hearings receiving testimony relating to the Reference the Directive to the Board. Hearings were at

also provided operational

in 1975 for the purpose and to receive comments

of on

>Pinot, North Dakota, November 18-19, Grand Forks, North Dakota, November 19, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, November 20. A l l board members were present at the hearings.

An additional public hearing was held by the Conmission on January 12, 1976, at Grand Forks, North Dakota, to receive testimony From the USBR concerning the construction program for the GDU. The Board was represented at this hearing.

The transcripits of all hearings have been reviewed by the Board and its committees. Relevant data, concerns, and questions bearing on the Directive are addressed in the Board's report. During the period of study, additional information was received by the Commission from individuals and organizations. Relevant portions of this mater ia l were also considered in preparing the 3oard's report. Chapter 111 of this Appendix summarises the expressed public concerns and indicates those having technical implications for the Engineering Committee.

G. Study Organization

The size and complexity of the task made it necessary for the Board to create five technical committees. These were established i n December, 1975, and eventually involved 53 members from 15 organizations. In appointments to the committees, care was exercised to achieve an appropriate representation of disciplines.

The five technical committees were as follows:

A. \dater 4uality

B. Water Quantity

C. Biology

D . Uses

E. Engineering

A Synthesis and Reports Committee, consisting of the Chairmen of the 6oard and the Chairmen of the five technical committees, assisted in organizing the report.

The basic assignments for the committees are described in the Board's Plan of Study. Each committee provided a plan of study by January 1976.

Coordination between committees and between the Board and committees was accomplished by: (1) exchanging minutes and correspondence, (2) designating two board members for each committee to provide the liaison functions, ( 3 ) holding periodic coordination meetings involving committee chairmen and the Board, and (4) making individual contact between study participants.

H. Time and Data Constraints

Construction of the GDU commenced in 1968 and was approximately 18 percent complete at the time of the Reference. In view of the on-going construction program and the assurance by the United States Government to comply with the Boundary Waters Treaty, an early response to the Reference was required. The Government recognized this urgency by re- questing a report from the IJC no later that October 31, 1976.

Because of the severe time restraints the Board and its committees concentrated their efforts on the examination, evaluation, and interpretation of existing data, and reports which became available during the course of the study. It was not possible to collect any significant amount of new information.

These constraints had a direct impact on several of the Engineering Committee's investigations carried out to provide quantitative information needed by other committees in their assessments of the effects of GDU in Canada. :.lost of those investigations which involved numerical computations were necessarily based on preliminary data collected or developed by the Water Quantity and Water Quality Committees and there was insufficient time, at the end of the study, to rework the calculations using final

5

v e r s i o n s o f t h e d a t a . I t s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e n o t e d t h a t some f i g u r e s c i t e d i n t h i s Appendix may be found i n d i s a g r e e x e n t uri.th cor responding i - ; g u r e s a p p e a r i n g e l s e w h e r e i n t h e B o a r d ' s r e p o r t o r i t s o the r Append ices , In e l ~ e r y case , however , t hese d i sc repanc ie s i n basic d a t a a r e of a minor n a t u r e ; t h e y do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s p r o d u c e d o r 5n- . l a l i d a t e an:: conclusions drawn f r o m them.

I1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT

A . P h v s i c a l F e a t u r e s

1. Geography: The study area ha.s been def ined as t h e S o u r i s , Ass in iboine and Red River Bas ins , and Lakes Manitoba and Winnipeg (Plate E- l) . W i t h i n t h i s area t h e streams which would c a r r y r e t u r n f l o w s f r o m t h e GDU i n c l u d e t.he S o u r i s River downstream of Minot , the Assiniboine River downstream from the mouth of t h e S o u r i s R i v e r , t h e W i l d Rice and Sheyenne Rivers , and the Red River from the mouth of t h e Wild Rice River into Lake Winnipeg. Approximately 57 p e r c e n t of t h e s t u d y area, o r 63,000 s q u a r e miles, i s i n Canada . Th i s exc ludes t he su r f ace areas of Lake Manitoba (1,800 square miles) and Lake Winnipeg (9,430 s q u a r e miles). Ou t s ide t he s tudy area as d e f i n e d , streams e n t e r i n g o r l e a v i n g Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba may a l s o b e a f f e c t e d b y p o s s i b l e t r a n s f e r of Missour i River B a s i n b i o t a .

2. Physiography: There are two p r i n c i p a l p h y s i o g r a p h i c u n i t s i n t h e s t u d y area. They a re t h e Glacial D r i f t P r a i r i e and the Lake Agassiz Basin. The D r i f t Pra i r ie extends from Manitoba through North Dakota into South Dakota . It i s about 225 miles east t o west on t h e in t e rna t iona l boundary and na r rows t o a wid th of about 75 miles on t he North Dakota-South Dakota border . Except for the Glacial Lake Sour i s Basin which i s a s t r i d e t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l b o u n d a r y t h e d r i f t p r a i r i e s lopes t oward t he sou theas t . E leva t ions r ange f rom 2000 f e e t i n t h e n o r t h w e s t t o a b o u t 1200 f e e t i n t h e s o u t h e a s t . Stream systems are poor1.y d e v e l o p e d i n t h e D r i f t P r a i r i e ; m o s t of t h e r u n o f f d r a i n s i n t o the numerous c losed depress ions where i t p e r c o l a t e s t o a ground water t a b l e o r e v a p o r a t e s . Most of t h e e x i s t i n g streams occupy channels which c a r r i e d water f rom the me l t ing g l ac i e r s . The Des Lacs, S o u r i s , James and Sheyenne Rivers , occupy la rge , g lac ia l melt-water v a l l e y s . T h e s e streams are s m a l l i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s i z e of t h e v a l l e y s t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e y f low.

A t i l l p la in occupies more than 80 p e r c e n t of t h e area of t h e D r i f t P r a i r i e . T h i s i s a n u n d u l a t i n g p l a i n w i t h low rounded knolls, numerous c losed depressions and a few widely spaced streams. W i t h i n t h e a r e a a re s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t m o r a i n e s w h i c h r ise from 50 t o 1 0 0 f e e t a b o v e t h e g e n e r a l l e v e l of t h e s u r r o u n d i n g p l a i n . T h e s e l i n e a r and curved ranges of h i l l s i d e n t i f y h e s i t a t i o n i n t h e movement of t he mos t r ecen t i c e s h e e t w h i c h c o v e r e d t h e a r e a 10,000 t o 12,000 yea r s ago . Su r face wa te r accumula t ing f rom r a in fa l l and t r a p p e d i n t h e c l o s e d d e p r e s s i o n s of t he mora ines and s u r r o u n d i n g p l a i n p r o v i d e e x c e l l e n t h a b i t a t f o r mig ra t ing wa te r fowl .

Gl .acia1 Lake Dakota , which extends across the North Dakota- South Dakota boundary, and the aforementioned Glacial Lake Sour i s are b o t h w i t h i n t h e d r i f t p r a i r i e . G l a c i a l L a k e D a k o t a w a s d r a i n e d by t h e James River in to the Missour i whereas Glac ia l Lake Sour i s was d r a i n e d

7

t h r o u g h t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e and Red R i v e r s i n t o Lake Winnipeg. Lake s e d i m e n t s i n b o t h b a s i n s are most ly sandy loams and loamy s a n d s . I n some p l a c e s t h e s e s a n d s are humocky and duned f rom pos t g lac ia l wind reworking.

I n t h e east c e n t r a l p o r t i o n of t h e D r i f t P r a i r i e i n N o r t h Dako ta t he re are t h r e e l a r g e o u t w a s h areas c rea t ed by depos i t s f rom g l a c i a l melt water f l o w i n g o u t f r o m t h e r e t r e a t i n g f r o n t o f t h e g l a c i e r . These depos i t s range f rom loamy s a n d s t o g r a v e l .

Most of t h e s o i l s c l a s s i f i e d as i r r i g a b l e i n t h e GDU have been formed f rom g lac io- lacus t r ine and g lac ia l ou twash sed iments and occur w i t h i n t h e D r i f t P r a i r i e . T h o s e i r r i p a b l e soils formed from l a k e sed iments are modera te ly coarse ( sandy loams) and coarse (loamy sands) t e x t u r e d . Some of t h e s o i l s formed from outwash are a l so modera t e ly c o a r s e and c o a r s e t e x t u r e d , b u t a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n are medium (loam) and m o d e r a t e l y c o a r s e t e x t u r e d s o i l s u n d e r l a i n b y s t r a t i f i e d s a n d a n d g r a v e l a t modera te depths . The so i l s are low in weathera .b le minera ls and s o l u b l e materials and are non-sa l ine . The water h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y of m o s t o f t h e i r r i g a b l e s o i l s i s moderate to low. Thus, crop product ion i s l i m i t e d i n y e a r s w i t h l o w o r u n e v e n d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r e c i p i t a t i o n dur ing the g rowing season .

The Lake Agassiz Basin, which is the o the r ma jo r phys iog raph ic u n i t w i t h i n t h e s t u d y area, i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o as t h e Red River Val ley . The Va l l ey ex tends f rom i t s southern he .adwaters on the South Dakota-Minnesota boundary through North Dakota and into the Province of Manitoba to Lake Winnipeg. On b o t h s i d e s of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l b o u n d a r y t h e Pembina e sca rpmen t c l ea r ly i den t i f i e s t he d iv i s ion be tween t he Lake Agass i z Bas in and t he Dr i f t Prair ie . S e v e r a l r i v e r s i n c l . u d i n g t h e Wild Rice and Sheyenne f l ow eas t e r ly ac ross t he l ake bas in i n to t he Red R i v e r . W i t h i n t h e b a s i n t h e l a k e p l a i n i s n e a r l y level. Much of t h e s u r f a c e s o i l i n t h e v a l l e y i s f e r t i l e c l a y w i t h r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o d u c - t i v i t y u n d e r a dryland farming regime.

3 . Climate: The s t u d y area h a s a c o n t i n e n t a l c l i m a t e , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by w i d e s e a s o n a l v a r i a t i o n s i n t e m p e r a t u r e a n d p r e c i p i t a t i o n . W i t h i n t h e area, t e m p e r a t u r e s i n c r e a s e f r o m n o r t h t o s o u t h a n d p r e c i p - i t a t i o n i n c r e a s e s f r o m w e s t t o east . Se lk i rk , Man i toba expe r i ences average t empera tures o f -19°C (-2°F) i n J anua ry and 19'C (66'F) i n J u l y , wh i l e t he co r re spond ing t empera tu res f o r Fargo , Nor th Dakota in the s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n of t h e Red River Basin are -14°C (7°F) and 22°C (71'F).

Average annua l p rec ip i t a t ion is about 36 cen t ime te r s (14 i n c h e s ) i n t h e w e s t e r n p o r t i o n of t h e S o u r i s B a s i n n e a r t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary and i nc reases t o ove r 61 cen t ime te r s (24 i nches ) i n t he ea s t e rn t r i b u t a r y r e a c h e s of t h e Red R i v e r B a s i n . P r e c i p i t a t i o n i s not evenly d i s t r i b u t e d a n n u a l l y o r s e a s o n a l l y . I n t h e d r o u g h t y e a r s of t h e 1930's p r e c i p i t a t i o n t o t a l s f e l l b e l o w 20 c e n t i m e t e r s (8 i n c h e s ) i n w e s t e r n

8

North Dakota and i n w e t years exceeded 76 c e n t i m e t e r s ( 3 0 i n c h e s ) . Two- t h i r d s o r more of t h e a n n u a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n f a l l s d u r i n g t h e g r o w i n g p e r i o d . Summer r a i n s are o f t e n l o c a l i z e d and i n t e n s e , o c c a s i o n a l l y accompanied by hail .

S u r f a c e t o p o g r a p h y , h i g h e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n l o s s e s a n d o t h e r h y d r o l o g i c f a c t o r s l i m i t average annual runoff f rom the Sour i s and Red River B a s i n s t o a b o u t 5% of a n n u a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n . Most runof f occu r s du r ing two months of t h e s p r i n g f r e s h e t .

N a t u r a l . v e g e t a t i o n of open p r a i r i e g r a s s l a n d s , w i t h t ree g r o w t h o n l y a l o n g d r a i n a g e c o u r s e s i n t h e S o u r i s a n d Red River lowlands , g i v e s way about 50 miles east of t h e Red River t o more o r less con t inous f o r e s t c o v e r r e f l e c t i n g t h e i n c r e a s e i n p r e c i p i t a t i o n f r o m west t o east.

B. S o c i a l F e a t u r e s

1. Populat ion: Approximately 1 . 7 m i l l i o n p e o p l e l i v e i n t h e s tudy area accord ing t o 1970 U.S. and 1971 Canadian census data . Of t h i s t o t a l , 1 , 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 o r 69% r e s i d e i n Canada. Urban c e n t e r s of 7,500 popula t ion or more , which are l o c a t e d a l o n g t h e r o u t e of GDU r e t u r n f lows , inc lude Winnipeg (540 ,000) , Por t age La P r a i r i e (13,000) and Se lk i rk (9 ,000) i n Canada ; and Fargo-Moorhead (120,000), Grand Forks- East Grand Forks (47 ,000) , Minot (32,000) and Valley City (8,000) i n t h e United States. P o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y is g r e a t e r a l o n g t h e Red mainstem t h a n i n i t s t r i b u t a r y v a l l e y s .

R u r a l areas i n b o t h c o u n t r i e s h a v e l o n g b e e n e x p e r i e n c i n g p o p u l a t i o n l o s s e s t o t h e l a r g e r t o w n s a n d c i t ies . Overall p o p u l a t i o n growth and per capi ta incomes are l o w e r t h a n t h e r e s p e c t i v e n a t i o n a l ave rages . These t r ends a r e expec ted t o con t inue .

2 . Economy: For almost a l l parts of t h e s t u d y area, a g r i c u l t u r e c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e dominant indus t ry . T h e S o u r i s , Assiniboine and Red R i v e r B a s i n s c o n s t i t u t e a p o r t i o n of what h a s become known as the “bread b a s k e t ” of North America. The study area’s a g r i c u l t u r e i s more product ive a n d d i v e r s i f i e d , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e f e r t i l e Red R i v e r V a l l e y , t h a n t h a t of t h e c e r e a l g r a i n and g raz ing economics f a r the r west. A more generous moi s tu re supp ly combined w i t h t h e n a t u r a l f e r t i l i t y of a l l u v i a l and l a c u s t r i n e s o i l s a c c o u n t s f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e .

O f a t o t a l of 31 m i l l i o n a c r e s i n t h e U n i t e d States p o r t i o n of t h e s t u d y area, approximate ly 20 .5 mi l l ion are used fo r c rop p roduc t ion and 3.3 m i l l i o n f o r p a s t u r e and r ange . P r inc ipa l c rops i nc lude wheat, b a r l e y , h a y , o a t s , f l a x , c o r n , s o y b e a n s , p o t a t o e s , s u n f l o w e r s a n d s u g a r b e e t s .

9

C u r r e n t l y less t h a n 0 .3% of t h i s a c r e a g e i s i r r i g a t e d . The GDU would i n c r e a s e t h e i r r i g a t e d a c r e a g e t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 5 % of t h e to ta l c rop producing acreage . Non-agr icu l tura l income sources inc lude f o d - p r o c e s s i n g i n d u s t r i e s and o t h e r n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s p r o c e s s i n g a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o p e t r o l e u m , c o a l , s a n d , g r a v e l and t imber . Economic growth ra tes have been less t h a n t h e n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e b e c a u s e t h i s area h a s a compara t ive ly smaller s h a r e of t h e n a t i o n ' s r a p i d l y g r o w i n g i n d u s t r i e s as we l l as a g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s a d v a n t a g e f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t s . W a t e r - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s are l i m i t e d and s e r v e m a i n l y t h e r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n .

A g r i c u l t u r e c o n t i n u e s t o d o m i n a t e t h e e c o n o m i c s of Manitoba, d e s p i t e r e c e n t a t t e m p t s t o d i v e r s i f y t h e p r o v i n c i a l r e s o u r c e b a s e b y energy , pu lp , min ing and recrea t iona l deve lopments . Of t h e 19 m i l l i o n a c r e s of fa rmland in Yani toba , 8 . 7 m i l l i o n acres o r 4 6 2 are i n t h e c r o p r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t s t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e or Red R i v e r s flow and 802 of the fa rmland i s improved, Farm enterpr ises a re d i v e r - s i f i e d because of f a v o r a b l e w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s and proximi ty to marke ts . The major crops a re w h e a t , b a r l e y , h a y , o a t s , f l a x , and rapeseed. Almost a l l o f t he %ni toba p roduc t ion and p r o c e s s i n g o f c o r n , f i e l d peas , buckwheat , sunf lowers , sugar bee ts , po ta toes and canning c rops a re i n t h i s a r e a . L i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t i o n i s also impor tan t ; 45% o f t h e c a t t l e , 7 1 Z of t h e h o g s and 78X of t h e p o u l t r y m a r k e t e d i n M a n i t o b a a r e f r o m t h i s a r e a .

Coal, potash and petroleum are b e i n g e x t r a c t e d i n t h e S o u r i s - Ass in ibo ine Bas in . The commercial f ishery on Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba a c c o u n t e d f o r 53Z of U n i t o b a ' s 20 mi l l i on pounds of f i s h h a r v e s t e d d u r i n g t h e 1974-75 f i s h i n g s e a s o n . The City of Winnipeg i s the dominant p r o c e s s i n g and d i s t r i b u t i o n c e n t e r f o r most of t h e area.

_ _ _ C . The Garr i son " Diversion Unit

The GIIU i s a mult i -purpose water resource p ro . j ec t des igned t o d ive r t ! . l i s sou r i R ive r water i n t o c e n t r a l and eastern North Dakota where t h e water w i l l b e u s e d t o i r r i g a t e 250,000 acres of l a n d , p r o v i d e a ml1nir:ipal and i n d u s t r i a l water s u p p l y t o 14 c i t i e s , and t o f u r n i s h r e c r e a t i o n a l and f i s h and w i l d l i f e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e area. . ? l . ; ~ t c . j - 1 ,,;J~J-/]', t h e pl.an f o r t h e U n i t and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o C a n a d i a n w a t er c;.

T h e C D U was a u t h o r i z e d by the Un i t ed S t a t e s Congres s as P u b l i c 1 . a ~ 89-108 da ted A~lgus t 5 , 1965. T h e P r i n c i p a l S u p p l y Works (Snake Creek Pumping P l a n t , YcClusky Canal , Lonet ree Reservoi r ) for the U n i t have been t~nder cons t r r Ic t ion b y t h e USER s i n c e 1968.

w i l l f l ow by g rav i ty t h rough t he 73 .6 mile McClusky Canal i n t o L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r s i t u a t e d on t h e h e a d w a t e r s of the Sheyenne River near Harvey, Nor th Dakota . Enroute to Lonet ree Reservoi r the McClusky Canal water w i l l pa s s t h rough a l a r g e s c r e e n i n g s t r u c t u r e c o n t a i n i n g two l e v e l s of 40 mesh s c r e e n d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n t t h e p a s s a g e of f i s h , f i s h e g g s , and o t h e r a q u a t i c l i f e i n t o t h e r e s e r v o i r . The 6,515 acre L inco ln Va l l ey Area near the lower end of t h e McClusky Canal will be s e rved by d i r ec t d i v e r s i o n s f r o m t h e c a n a l .

Lone t r ee Rese rvo i r w i l l be c r ea t ed by c o n s t r u c t i o n of Lone t r ee D a m on the upper Sheyenne River, Winter ing Dam on the headwaters o f the Win te r ing R ive r , and t he James River Dykes on the headwaters of t h e James Rive r . The 424,000 acre-foot reservoir is so s i t u a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t o p o g r a p h y of North Dakota that water f r o m t h e r e s e r v o i r c a n b e d i v e r t e d b y g r a v i t y i n t o t h e S o u r i s , Red and James River Bas ins , as w e l l as the Devi l s Lake Bas in .

The Velva Canal will convey pro jec t water northward from L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r t o i r r i g a t e t h e 1 2 , 2 0 0 - a c r e K a r l s r u h e Area and 103,800 acres i n t h e M i d d l e S o u r i s Area. The New Rockford Canal w i l l f low eas tward t o p r o v i d e i r r i g a t i o n water for 20 ,935 acres i n t h e New Rockford Area and t o d e l i v e r water i n t o t h e James River Feeder Canal for u s e i n t h e Oakes - LaMoure Area. The Warwick Canal , an ex tens ion of t h e N e w Rockford Canal, will serve the 47,220-acre Warwick-McVille Area and p rov ide water f o r t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of the Devi ls Lake Chain.

Water f o r t h e Oakes - LaMoure Area will be d ive r t ed f rom the New Rockford Canal in to the James Rive r Feede r Cana l l ead ing t o t he James R i v e r n e a r t h e c i t y of New Rockford. The water will f low down t h e James R ive r , be r e - r egu la t ed i n t he ex i s t ing J ames town Rese rvo i r , and c o n t i n u e down t h e James River. The LaMoure Area (13 ,350 ac re s ) w i l l be served by a series of small pumping p l a n t s a l o n g t h e James River . Water for the 45,980-acre Oakes Area will be pumped from the James River a t the Oakes Pumping Plan t and f low through the Oakes Canal to Taaye r R e s e r v o i r , a r e - r e g u l a t i o n and s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r l o c a t e d on t h e d i v i d e between the East and West Oakes Areas. The i r r i g a b l e l a n d s will b e served by a combinat ion of d i r e c t r e l e a s e s f r o m t h e Oakes Canal and from s t o r a g e r e l e a s e s f rom Taayer Reservoir .

Four t een Nor th Dako ta c i t i e s will be provided with municipal and i n d u s t r i a l (Mdl) water from the project works. About 40,000 acre- f e e t a n n u a l l y w i l l b e d e l i v e r e d f r o m t h e p r o j e c t c a n a l s y s t e m d u r i n g o f f - p e a k i r r i g a t i o n p e r i o d s . The c i t i e s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d t o c o n s t r u c t t he necessa ry conveyance f ea tu re s t o b r ing t he water t o t h e c i t y , and t o c o n s t r u c t t e r m i n a l s t o r a g e f a c i l i t i e s f o r w i n t e r s t o r a g e . The C i t y of Minot will b e t h e l a r g e s t M&I water u s e r w i t h a n u l t i m a t e a n n u a l d i v e r - s i o n of approximate ly 23 ,000 acre- fee t to be de l ivered f rom the Velva C a n a l v i a a 10 .5 mile p i p e l i n e t o t h e c i t y .

11

The GDU p rov ides fo r t he deve lopmen t of n i n e new, or expanded w a t e r - o r i e n t e d , p u b l i c u s e r e c r e a t i o n areas. These areas, being planned fo r deve lopmen t by t he Na t iona l Pa rk Service t o b e a d m i n i s t r a t e d b y c o u n t y o r l o c a l p a r k b o a r d s , will b e l o c a t e d a t s t o r a g e a n d r e g u l a t i n g r e s e r v o i r s a n d a t e x i s t i n g l a k e s t h a t w i l l b e f r e s h e n e d b y p r o j e c t waters. These developments, which are d i s p e r s e d o v e r t h e p r o j e c t area, w i l l e x p a n d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s .

The development of numerous f i s h and w i l d l i f e areas d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e area i s a l s o a purpose of t h e GDU. A s o r i g i n a l l y au tho r i zed ove r 1 4 6 , 0 0 0 acres of water and marsh and adjacent dryland would be permanently set a s i d e f o r t h e 36 major and numerous small f i s h and w i l d l i f e areas t h a t will be developed as a p a r t of t h e p r o j e c t . A permanent and control led water supply would be p rovided for about 5 6 , 0 0 0 acres of new a n d e x i s t i n g w e t l a n d h a b i t a t t h a t w o u l d b e a p a r t of t h e s e areas. T h i s was d e s i g n e d t o e n h a n c e t h e i r v a l u e f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n a n d u s e o f w a t e r f o w l a n d o t h e r w i l d l i f e , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g d r o u g h t y e a r s when p roduc t ion may b e d r a s t i c a l l y c u r t a i l e d . S u b s e q u e n t l y , a new p l a n f o r f i s h and w i ld l i f e deve lopmen t was conce ived by the Uni ted S ta tes F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e (FWS), and was accepted by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Congres s . Th i s p l an i s now i n t h e p r o c e s s o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n b y t h e USBR and t he FWS. The new p l a n will e l i m i n a t e m o s t o f t h e o r i g i n a l 36 development areas and will f o c u s o n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n a n d r e s t o r a t i o n o f d r a i n e d w e t l a n d s t o g e t h e r w i t h a d j o i n i n g u p l a n d h a b i t a t . T h e new p l a n w i l l i n v o l v e t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of 1 4 6 , 5 3 0 acres and will i n c l u d e a b o u t 5 3 , 0 0 0 acres of marsh. The areas will b e o p e r a t e d as game management areas b y f e d e r a l o r s t a t e agencies and w i l l b e o p e n t o p u b l i c h y n t i n g . P r o j e c t r e s e r v o i r s will p r o v i d e new f i s h i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s as well as rest areas f o r m i g r a t o r y w a t e r f o w l .

A l l canals and open l a t e ra l s w i l l be l ined wi th compacted e a r t h o r b u r i e d membrane l i n i n g s i n t h o s e r e a c h e s w h e r e n a t u r a l s o i l cond i t ions wou ld pe rmi t excess ive cana l s eepage .

Water d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m s t o s e r v e the e n t i r e i r r i g a t i o n u n i t a r e b e i n g d e s i g n e d f o r s p r i n k l e r a p p l i c a t i o n . The p r o j e c t s y s t e m w i l l d e l i v e r water t o a farm ownership boundary where the farm operator w i l l p rov ide a pump, m o t o r a n d s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e water ove r h i s l a n d . B u r i e d p i p e l i n e s will b e u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m i n p l a c e of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l o p e n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s .

A system of b u r i e d p i p e d r a i n s w i l l h e i n s t a l l e d w i t h i n i r r i g a t e d areas t o c o n t r o l t h e g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l s . The p i p e d r a i n s w i l l be p laced approximate ly e ight fee t be low the g round sur face and w i l l d i s c h a r g e i n t o n a t u r a l waterways o r c o n s t r u c t e d o p e n d r a i n o u t l e t s l e a d i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p a l r i v e r s w i t h i n t h e a r e a .

A n es t imate of t h e number of miles of water conveyance and d r a i n a g e f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e CIjU p l a n s i s shown below:

F e a t u r e T o t a l Xiles

Supply Canal and Open Laterals B u r i e d I r r i g a t i o n P i p e l i n e s Open Drains Bur ied P ipe Dra ins

486 495 327

1 , 7 2 3

R e t u r n f l o w s c o n s i s t i n g o f i r r i g a t i o n water and n a t u r a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n p a s s i n g t h r o u g h t h e s o i l p r o f i l e , c a n a l s e e p a g e , and o p e r a t i o n a l s p i l l s f r o m t h e water d e l i v e r y s y s t e m , will a c c r u e i n t h e area r i v e r s o r b a s i n s v i a t h e p r o j e c t d r a i n a g e s y s t e m a s shown below:

Number of I r r i g a t i o n Area Acres

Kar ls ruhe and Sour i s New Rockford Warwick-McVille Warwick-McVille LaMour e Wesr Oakes East Oakes L inco ln Va l l ey

116,000 20,935 34,100 13,120 13,350 19,660 26,320

6,515

TJaters Receiving Return Flows

Sour i s River Sheyenne and Red Rivers Sheyenne and Red R ive r s Devi ls Lake Basin James River James River Wild Rice and Red Rivers Lonet ree Reservoi r

The USBR h a s t h e o v e r a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n and maintenance of t h e GDU and will o p e r a t e and ma in ta in a l l p ro jec t works d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g c o m p l e t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . P u r s u a n t t o t h e terms of t h e repayment c o n t r a c t s t h e USBR may t r a n s f e r t h e o p e r a t i o n and maintenance of a l l o r p o r t i o n s of t h e p r i n c i p a l s u p p l y works and secondary supply works to the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. L ikewise , t he USBR may t r a n s f e r t h e o p e r a t i o n and maintenance o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m w o r k s w i t h i n t h e v a r i o u s i r r i g a t i o n areas t o t h e I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s . The USBR r e t a i n s t h e r i g h t t o r e - a s s u m e t h e o p e r a t i o n and maintenance of any po r t ion of t h e t r a n s f e r r e d p r o j e c t works whenever opera t ion and main tenance func t ions a re no t be ing per formed to i t s s a t i s f a c t i o n .

T h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n w i l l extend from ?lay 15 through October 15; however, the Snake Creek Pumping Plant and McCluskv Canal may be o p e r a t i o n a l f o r a longer term dur ing an e s t r rme ly d ry pe r iod .

C o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s t o d a t e have been l imi t ed t o t he P r i n c i p a l S u p p l y Works. The Snake Creek Pumping plant is comple t e , t he McClusky C a n a l was cons ide red t o be 85?( complete 3s of J u l y 1, 1976. and the Winter ing Dm feci t l l re of the Lonetree Rese-rvnir comples w a s cons idered 69% complete . Construct ion has not been i n i t i a t e d on Lonet ree D a m o r t h e James River Dykes. Based on t o t a l e s t i m a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s . t h e GDU i s now es t ima ted t o h e 19% comple te . Cons t ruc t ion of t h e d i s t r i h u t i o n works beyond Lonetree Reservoir has no t been s t a r t ed . The proposed c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e f o r the CDLI is shown i n T a h l e 1” 1 .

Tab le E-1: Gar r i son D ive r s ion Un i t Cons t ruc t ion Schedu le

F e a t u r e

P r i n c i p a l S u p p l y Works Snake Creek Pumping P l a n t McClusky Canal Winter ing Dam L o n e t r e e Dam and Reservoir

S o u r i s S e c t i o n Velva Canal Kar l s r u h e Sour is Area

Oakes Sec t ion Oakes Pumping P l a n t W e s t s i d e I r r i g a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s E a s t s i d e I r r i g a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s LaMoure Area Taaye r Rese rvo i r , Dyke & Pumping P l a n t

Cen t ra l Nor th Dako ta Sec t ion New Rockford Canal James River Feeder Canal New R o c k f o r d I r r i g a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s Warwick-McVille I r r i g a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s L i n c o l n V a l l e y I r r i g a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s Dev i l s Lake Res to ra t ion Cana l s James River Improvement

Contract Completion Award Date

7/68 12/75 3/70 1 /78 8/75 1 2 / 7 7 3/77 8/79

* * * * * *

2/78 1 /80 3/78 * 7/79 * 3/79 * 3/79 1 /82

4 /78 * 3/79 1/82 1 / 8 1 * 1/81 * 5/78 1 / 8 1 5 /81 * 4 / 7 9 1/82

I n i t i a l Water

5/81 5 / 8 1 5 /81 5 /81

* * *

5/80 5/80

5/82 5/82

*

5/82 5/82 * *

5/81

5/82 *

Source: United States Bureau of Reclamation

14

I11 PUBLIC INVOLVCENT

A . Publ ic Concerns

Tes t imony expres s ing pub l i c conce rns r e l a t ing t o t he GDT was rece ived a t pub l i c hea r ings convened by t he IJC i n Y i n o t , Grand Forks , and Winnipeg. Some of t he conce rns were restated and emphasized during t h e p o r t i o n s of Board meet ings opened to the publ ic . Addi t iona l t es t imony was r ece ived by t he IJC dur ing t he cour se of t he s tudy and was forwarded t o t h e Board f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

A l l documents suppor t ing these concerns were reviewed by t h e Board. Concerns that were o u t s i d e of t h e terms of r e f e r e n c e of t h e s tudy p rov ided u se fu l background i n fo rma t ion . Conce rns t ha t were t h o u g h t t o b e w i t h i n t h e terms of re fe rence of t h e s t u d y were cons idered i n p r e p a r i n g t h e r e p o r t . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e s e c o n c e r n s were f o r t h e adequacy of t h e d a t a , t h e i m p a c t on Canada of t h e r e t u r n flows f rom the GDU, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e t r a n s f e r of f i s h and o the r b io t a f rom the M i s s o u r i River b a s i n t o C a n a d i a n waters and fo r o the r impac t s of t h e GDC on t h e p e o p l e of Manitoba.

f l u c t u a t i o n s i n f l o w are n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n p r e s e n t e c . o l o g y , and p e r i o d s of low flow are r e q u i r e d t o d r y o u t f l o o d e d areas. It w a s a l s o s u g g e s t e d t h a t e l i m i n a t i o n of p e r i o d s of low flow might increase botulism i n water fowl .

There was conce rn t ha t t he r e tu rn f l ows f rom the GDU t h a t will a c c r u e t o t h e S o u r i s and Red R i v e r s would have much h igher Concent ra t ions of d i s s o l v e d sal ts , suspended s ed imen t s , nu t r i en t s , pes t i c ides , and trace e l emen t s t han now p r e s e n t i n t h e s e r i v e r s . T h i s would i n c r e a s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of t h e s e materials i n t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e a n d Red R i v e r s a n d i n c r e a s e t h e t o t a l l o a d i n g i n L a k e W i n n i p e g and Lake Manitoba. The p resence of h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of t h e s e materials could damage f i s h a n d o t h e r a q u a t i c l i f e . It w a s a l s o f e l t t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e s e materials a n d t h e a s s o c i a t e d i n c r e a s e i n t h e g r o w t h of a l g a e would make t h e waters less a c c e p t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e a n d w o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t of producing water of a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y f o r domest ic and i n d u s t r i a l u s e . The thought w a s e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h e water qua l i t y cou ld be worsened occas iona l ly by a l a c k of mixing during p e r i o d s of low f low that would a l l o w s l u g s of GDU r e t u r n f l o w t o move down t h e river v i r t u a l l y i n t a c t . T h e r e was a c o n c e r n t h a t t h e r e t u r n f low f rom the GDU would have h igher concent ra t ions o f materials than a n t i c i p a t e d b o t h b e c a u s e of t h e dumping of waters from wet lands and the removal of wetlands which act as b i o l o g i c a l f i l t e r s f o r water. There was an o p i n i o n t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e water i n C a n a d i a n r i v e r s c o u l d b e r e d u c e d t o t h e p o i n t t h a t i t would create a human h e a l t h h a z a r d .

There w a s t hough t t o be real p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of f o r e i g n b i o t a f r o m t h e M i s s o u r i R i v e r t o t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e and Red R ive r s and u l t ima te ly t o Lake Winn ipeg and Lake Manitoba and the other r i v e r s f l o w i n g i n t o and out of t h e s e l a k e s . It was b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e I J C t h a t t h e r e are known t o b e i n t h e M i s s o u r i R i v e r system a number of s p e c i e s of f i s h , i n c l u d i n g t h e g i z z a r d s h a d , and s e v e r a l o r g a n i s m s t h a t c a u s e i n f e c t i o u s d i s e a s e s o f f i s h t h a t are no t p r e s e n t l y i n t h e C a n a d i a n s y s t e m and t h a t would cause damage i f i n t r o - duced. It w a s f e l t t h a t i t would be necessary t o p r o v i d e a b s o l u t e , p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e t r a n s f e r of f i s h and t h e i r diseases, o t h e r o r g a n i s m s t h a t would d i s r u p t t h e a q u a t i c s y s t e m and d i s e a s e s t h a t m i g h t i n f e c t p l a n t s , a n i m a l s and man. It w a s f e l t t h a t s c r e e n i n g of t h e water w o u l d n o t p r o v i d e t h i s p r o t e c t i o n .

S e v e r a l b i o l o g i s t s f e l t t h a t t h e d r a i n i n g of wet lands in Nor th Dakota would r e s u l t i n a d e c r e a s e i n t h e a n n u a l w a t e r f o w l p o p u l a t i o n . They f e l t t h a t t h i s would s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e t h e n o r t h e r n m i g r a t i o n of pos t juven i l e ducks f rom Nor th Dako ta t o Man i toba poss ib ly i n v io l a t ion of the Migra tory Bi rd Trea ty be tween the two c o u n t r i e s .

It was’ f e l t t h a t t h e r i g h t s of some I n d i a n s had not been c o n s i d e r e d i n p l a n n i n g t h e p r o j e c t . O t h e r p e o p l e e x p r e s s e d u n e a s i n e s s a b o u t t h e l a c k of f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e GDU, conce rn fo r t he w ide ly

1 6

c o n f l i c t i n g o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h e i m p a c t o f t h e GDU a n d f e a r f o r t h e f u t u r e impact of the GDU on t he phys i ca l , e conomic and soc i a l s t ruc tu re o f Manitoba.

S e v e r a l b r i e f s s u b m i t t e d b y r e s i d e n t s of North Dakota expressed real conce rn t ha t t he peop le o f Man i toba d id no t fu l ly app rec i a t e t he f a c t t h a t t h e r e t u r n f l o w s f r o m t h e GDU would b e b e n e f i c i a l s u p p l e m e n t s t o t h e waters o f t h e S o u r i s , A s s i n i b o i n e a n d Red R ive r s du r ing pe r iods of low flow i n t h a t t h e y would make t h e s e r i v e r s more r e l i a b l e s o u r c e s of water f o r i r r i g a t i o n , m u n i c i p a l u s e and r e c r e a t i o n . O t h e r s e x p r e s s e d conce rn t ha t fu tu re deve lopmen t s i n Saska tchewan wou ld fu r the r r educe t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e water i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r b e f o r e i t en tered Nor th Dakota. They a s k e d t h e I J C t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e c o n c e r n s when de termining the impac t o f t he GDU.

B . Eng inee r ing

C o n c e r n s r e l a t i n g t o e n g i n e e r i n g a s p e c t s o f GDU were expressed p r i m a r i l y a t the Minot and Winnipeg meet ings and essent ia l ly cen tered a r o u n d t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s :

a . The amount of channeling of existing streams and r e l a t e d

b . Eros ion of r iverbanks wi th in Canada . c . I n c r e a s e d water p r o c e s s i n g c o s t s t o p r o d u c e a c c e p t a b l e

works required by t h e p r o j e c t .

water f o r d o m e s t i c a n d i n d u s t r i a l p u r p o s e s d u e t o t h e e f f e c t s o f GDU on water q u a l i t y .

f a c i l i t y . d . A l l eged i nadequacy o f t he McClusky C a n a l f i s h s c r e e n

e . A l t e r n a t i v e p l a n s t o t h e p r o j e c t .

I n i t s s tudy the Engineer ing Commit tee addressed these concerns e i t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t l y o r i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h o t h e r c o m m i t t e e s . F o r e x a m p l e , s e v e r a l j o i n t m e e t i n g s were he ld w i th t he B io logy Commi t t ee t o d i scuss operational and design problems o f t h e f i s h s c r e e n .

The conce rn fo r e ros ion o f r i ve rbanks a rose f rom the be l i e f t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e d f l o w s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e G a r r i s o n P r o j e c t w o u l d a c c e l e r a t e t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and a r cheo log ica l s i tes o n o r a d j a c e n t t o t h e r i v e r b a n k .

In Mani toba , concern was e x p r e s s e d f o r t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e water r e s u l t i n g f r o m p r o j e c t r e t u r n f l o w s . I t was f e a r e d t h a t i n c r e a s e d water p r o c e s s i n g c o s t s , a n d p o s s i b l y new t r ea tmen t p l an t s , wou ld be n e c e s s a r y t o p r o d u c e water o f a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y f o r d o m e s t i c a n d i n - d u s t r i a l u s e . I t was a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i n d e m n i t y a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n were n o t a c c e p t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e p r o j e c t b e c a u s e t h e g r o w t h p o t e n t i a l o f Por tage l a P ra i r i e , Sour i s and o ther communi t ies would be a f fec ted by i n a d e q u a t e o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y water s u p p l i e s .

17

Possible alternatives or modifications to the Garrison Project, as well as other concerns which surfaced during the course of the study, have also been addressed in the work of the Engineering Committee.

18

I V : ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

A . Membership and A f f i l i a t i o n

Name

Mr. F . Hunt

Mr. G . H . llacKay

?Ir . P . L . Balkan

Mr. T . J . Dafoe

Nr . G . D . Balacko

Mr. J . B a t h u r s t

Mr. 2 .J . C a l t o n

Mr. L . Kowalski

A f f i l i a t i o n

Chief, Programs and Estimates Branch Des ign and Cons t ruc t ion D iv i s ion U . S . Bureau of Reclamation B i l l i n g s , Montana

A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r of Planning Manitoba Department of Mines,

Resources and Environmental Management

Winnipeg, Manitoba

I r r i g a t i o n E n g i n e e r U.S. Soi l Conse rva t ion Se rv ice Bismark, North Dakota

Sen io r P ro jec t Eng inee r Env i ronmen ta l P ro tec t ion Se rv ice Environment Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba

Chief , Envi ronmenta l S tudies Manitoba Department of Mines,

Resources and Environmental 1 lanag emen t

Winnipeg , Manitoba

Ch ie f , Eng inee r ing D iv i s ion In l and Wate r s D i rec to ra t e Environment Canada H u l l , Quebec

Chief , Planning Branch S t . P a u l D i s t r i c t U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers S t . Paul , Minnesota

C h i e f , S m a l l P r o j e c t s S e c t i o n Planning Branch S t . Paul Dis t r ic t U . S . Army Corps of Engineers S t . Paul , l f inneso t a

(December 5 , 1975 - February 15, 1976)

(February 15, 1976 - onward)

19

Name Affiliation

PIr . J. S . Lanich Environmental Analyst U.S. Environmental Protection

Denver, Colorado Agency

Mr. D.1). Schulz Director, Engineering Division North Dakota State Water

Bismark, North Dakota Commission

Mr. H.M. Olson Superintendent and Agricultural IGDSB Liaison Engineer

Carrington Irrigation Station North Dakota State University Carrington, North Dakota

Mr. T.E. Weber Sen.ior Assistant Deputy Minister IGDSB Liaison Water Resources Division Manitoba Department of Mines,

Resources and Environmental Hanagement

Winnipeg, Manitoba

B. Directive -

The following Directive was given to the Engineering Committee by the IGDSB:

The Engineering committee will supply GDU project data to other committees as needed and will prepare alteration plans if needed as indicated from the results of the evaluations of the Uses Committee and Biology Committee. These modifications, alterations or adjustments to the authorized project may for study purposes be considered located either in the U.S. or Canada.

C. Approach

1. Basic Concepts: In the early stages of the IGDSB study, the Engineering Committee could foresee that most of its work would probably be pursuant to requests from the other committees to investigate alternative methods of eliminating, reducing or accommodating any adverse impacts of the Garrison project on uses in Canada. It was further recognized that few specific requests could be expected to be generated until the study had progressed t o a point where quantitative and qualitative data had been developed and then used

20

as the basis for a preliminary evaluation of the nature and magnitude of the effects of GDU. The main burden of the Engineering Committee's work would therefore be felt during the later months of the study, under pressure of the approaching completion deadline. Accordingly, in order to bc effective in responding to these requests in a timely fashion, the Committee members agreed that an approach which was anticipatory in nature would be appropriate. This anticipatory approach was reflected throughout the Committee's work in terms of general familiarization with the Garrison project (site inspections, tours of the entire project area, presentations, briefings by project officials, review of USBR alternatives report, etc.) and, through "brainstorming" sessions, by the development of a matrix of conceptual engineering solutions to the impact problems that might be identified.

2. Matrix: This matrix, reproduced on page 22, delineated a range of possible engineering means of either eliminating, reducing or accommodating adverse impacts that the Committee felt were likely to be created by the GDU on water quality, water quantity, water uses and biology in Canada. It did not attempt to indicate priorities or to include further rinal~yses of possible solutions. It did not consider whether sdch possible solutions would in fact be feasible from either an engineering, economic or other point of view. It was not claimed to be all-inclusive nor was it intended to restrict or structure the Committee's work program in any way. On the other hand, it was not intended that every concept in the matrix would necessarily be studied in detail by the EnSi.rlettrirlg Committee. Its purposes were simply to aid Committee members in project familiarization, to stimulate creative thinking and to provide a framework within which other committees could most effectively express their requests for assistance from the Engineer- ing Commit tee.

The matrix was submitted to the IGDSB as part of the Committee's Plan of Study, the full text of which is appended as Attachment E-1. It was a l s o distributed to the other committees for information and comments. They were asked to familiarize themselves with the matrix and to formulate their requests to the Engineering Committee with the purposes and limitations of the matrix in mind.

.

2 1

MATRIX FOR ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO GDU EFFECTS ON CANADA

NOTE: There is no implied priority in listings of alternatives

ELIMINATE IMPACTS REDUCE IMPACTS ACCOMMODATE IMPACTS

1) DiversionIRe-use of return flows

1) Regulation of return 1) Channelization flows

2) No irrigation in Red River 2) Reduce area irrigated 2) Use (Irrigation, Municipal/ QUANTITY watershed in Red River watershed Industrial water supply)

3 ) Partial diversion of 3 ) Protective lleasures return flows (Dykes, etc. )

4) Irrigation Management 4) Non-structural Measures (Flood Insurance, land use

N 5) Lining canals restrictions, etc.) h)

1) Diversion of return flows 1) Irrigation Planagement 1) Water treatment of Canada

2) Treatment of return flows 2) Staged development

3) No irrigation in Red River 3 ) Partial treatment of for Municipalities and

(e.g. Town of Souris)

2) Direct alternate water supply

Watershed return flows Industries QUALITY

4 ) Reduction of area irrigated in Red River Watershed

5) Dilution of return flows

6) Lining canals

1) Diversion of all waters back 1) Plore and better safeguards - from engineering standpoint to Missouri watershed these effects cannot be

BIOLOGY accommodated 2) No irrigation in Red River

Watershed

* Including all its tributaries in the Study Area.

D . Summary of Meet ings

The Engineering Committee held 25 meetings:

Date - December 4-5, 1975 January 13-14, 1976 February 5-6, 1976 February 16-17, 1976 March 3-4, 1976 March 18-19, 1976 Apr i l 1 -2 , 1976 A p r i l 20-22, 1976 May 4-5, 1976 May 18-19, 1976 May 28, 1976

June 2-3, 1976 June 16-17, 197 July 14-15, 1976 August 11, 1976 August 26, 1976 September 2, 1976

September 9-10, 1976 September 16, 1976

September 28-29, 1976 October 6-8, 1976

October 19-22, 1976 October 26-29, 1976 November 8-12, 1976 November 16-18, 1976

Locat ion

Winnipeg, Manitoba Bismarck, North Dakota Winnipeg, Manitoba Bismarck, North Dakota Winnipeg, Manitoba Winnipeg, Nanitoba Bismarck, North Dakota Winnipeg, Manitoba Bismarck, North Dakota Ottawa, Ontar io Bismarck, North Dakota

B i l l i n g s , Montana Denver, Colorado Winnipeg, Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba Minneapol is , Minnesota Bismarck, North Dakota

Winnipeg, Manitoba Bismarck, North Dakota

(wi th USBR) Winnipeg, Manitoba Ottawa, Ontar io

(IJC B r i e f i n g ) B i l l i n g s , Montana Winnipeg, Manitoba Winnipeg, Xanitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba

(with Biology Committee)

(with Biology Committee)

2 3

V: ENGINEERING COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS

The Engineering Committee had two main responsibilities. The first was to provide engineering services to the Board and its other committees. This included answering technical questions, obtaining project information; developing new data, evaluating technical concepts, preparing cost estimates, and, in general, giving engineering advice to other groups involved in the Garrison Study. Its second task was to identify and examine possible modifications, alterations or adjustments to the authorized GDU plan aimed at eliminating or reducing undesirable effects of the project. The distinction between the two, however, proved to be somewhat arbitrary. Investigations for the purpose of providing technical data to assist others in quantifying GDU impacts, the search for possible means of eliminating, reducing or accommodating them, and the development and evaluation of proposed project modifications designed to accomplish this, were usually closely inter-related. For this reason, in reporting on the various studies undertaken by the Enginering Committee, this Chapter groups them by subject matter instead of by purpose, magnitude or importance. Four areas of interest are thus considered: matters related to the prevention of inter-basin transfers of fish, and those related to the quality, quantity or uses aspects of water.

In its work concerning possible modifications to the authorized GDU plan, the Committee reviewed the USBR report on alternatives pertain- ing to the Souris section and considered them in its own deliberations. A digest of the report is included in this Chapter.

A. Transfers of Fish

The Biology Committee investigated several possible routes of fish migration and transfer which may exist between the Mississippi, Missouri and Hudson Bay Drainages (see Appendix C - Biology). In addition, the Biology Committee requested the Engineering Committee to investigate interconnections which may already exist in the immediate areas of GDU and those which would result from GDU. This section identifies these connections and discusses means of preventing fish transfer.

1. Fish iligration and Transfer Routes: The following des- cribes the routes of possible migration which were investigated, and outlines the engineering features of the GDU which would make the transfers possible. Refer to Plate E-1.

a. Kindschi Fish and Wildlife Development Area Turnout: This outlet is provided to allow 20 cfs of McClusky Canal water to flow directly into this area which is tributary to the Lonetree Reser- voir. This turnout is located upstream of the McClusky Canal fish screen and would provide a direct connection from the Missouri River to Hudson Bay.

25

The a u t h o r i z e d GDU p l a n p r o v i d e s f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a f i s h s c r e e n f o r t h e K i n d s c h i F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e A r e a T u r n o u t , s i m i l a r i n c o n c e p t t o t h e McClusky C a n a l f i s h s c r e e n . O p e r a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s w i t h t h i s smaller s t r u c t u r e would be similar t o t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d f o r t h e McClusky Canal f i s h s c r e e n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e E n g i n e e r i n g Commit tee cons idered tha t inadequate p rovis ion was made f o r t h e h a n d l i n g of sc reen over f lows .

b . From L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e S h e y e n n e River and thence downstream to the Red River: With the proposed 400 c f s ga t ed ou t l e t s t ruc tu re f rom Lone t r ee Rese rvo i r t o t he Sheyenne K i v e r t h e r e i s no b a r r i e r t o p r e v e n t f i s h f r o m moving in to t he Sheyenne River , and hence downst ream to the Red River when t h e g a t e i s opened. In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e e x i s t s a smaller (20 c f s ) o u t l e t f o r m u n i c i p a l and i ndus t r i a l wa te r r e l eases t o t he Sheyenne R ive r wh ich w i l l be o p e r a t e d a s n e c e s s a r y t o meet downstream water requirements . There is no b a r r i e r t o f i s h movement t h r o u g h t h i s o u t l e t .

c . F i s h m i g r a t i o n v i a p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n a l w a s t e w a y s : P r o j e c t water from Lonetree Reservoir w i l l f low through GDU supply f a c i l i t i e s t o p r o v i d e i r r i g a t i o n s e r v i c e t o t h e E a s t O a k e s , Warwick- McVi l le , Kar l s ruhe , and Sour i s Areas , a l l of which are t r i b u t a r y t o r i v e r s which are l o c a t e d i n t h e Hudson Bay Drainage. The d e s i g n of t h e i r r i g a t i o n water d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m s i n t h e s e a r e a s p r o v i d e s f o r t h e d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e o f " e x c e s s " i r r i g a t i o n waters t o n a t u r a l watercourses through wasteways (See Figure E-1). The Engineer ing Commi t t ee s tud ied t hese connec t ions and conf i rmed t ha t t he poss ib i l i t y f o r f i s h t r a n s f e r would e x i s t i n a l l c a s e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e C o m m i t t e e conf i rmed t ha t f i sh cou ld mig ra t e ups t r eam in t he J ames R ive r , t h rough t h e Oakes Pumping P l a n t t o t h e E a s t Oakes a r e a .

d . D e v i l s Lake-Rock L a k e : T h i s t r a n s f e r r o u t e i s from the Dev i l s Lake Feede r Cana l sys t em, i n to Dev i l s Lake wh ich a t times forms a water connec t ion w i th Rock Lake , and f i na l ly downs t r eam in to t h e Pembina River. The North Dakota State Water Commission a s s i s t e d the Engineer ing Commit tee in p repar ing a p r o f i l e of t h e a r e a i n ques- t i o n . T h i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u c h a connec t ion was p o s s i b l e d u r i n g p e r i o d s of h igh water.

e . L i v i n g s t o n R e s e r v o i r : The p r e s e n t p l a n f o r s u p p l y i n g water t o t h e C i t y of Flinot, North Dakota, as p a r t of t h e G D U , i n v o l v e s pumping up t o 80 c f s of water from the Velva Canal through a 10-mile p i p e l i n e t o a r egu la t ing r e se rvo i r on L iv ings ton Creek , wh ich i s a s m a l l i n t e r m i t t e n t t r i b u t a r y o f t h e S o u r i s X i v e r .

The L i v i n g s t o n Dam wou ld have an ou t l e t works t o s e rve t h e C i t y of Mino t , and a l so t o make releases to L iv ings ton Creek t o m a t c h t h e n a t u r a l i n f l o w t o t h e r e s e r v o i r . T h e r e i s a l so an emergency sp i l lway wh ich wou ld d i scha rge i n to L iv ings ton Creek wh ich i s designed t o h a n d l e 3,650 c f s . E i t h e r o n e of t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s would provide a d i r ec t connec t ion be tween Missour i R ive r water and the Souris River which f lows into Canada.

26

Ly u

m

a

4

0 c

Y

m

m

Y

0

FIGURE

E-l

27

f. From the Souris River upstream through the Souris Area wasteways and into the Velva Canal: This possible transfer route is unlikely. Most of the wasteways will be dry much of the time, and physical barriers (drop structures) would impede transfer possibilities at outlets from the canal to the wasteways. Final designs of the distirubtion and wasteway systems would have to be reviewed before any possible areas for fish transfer via this route could be identified.

g. From I4anitoba upstream through the Souris River into North Dakota and Saskatchewan: This possible route was identified by the Biology Committee as a result of increased flows which would allow dissolved oxygen levels in the Souris River to be maintained year round at a level to sustain fish. It is reported that under present conditions, dissolved oxygen levels become so low that fish cannot survive to migrate upstream.

h. From Bear Creek (tributary to the James River) upstream during periods of high water into the Wild Rice River Basin: Close study and field investigations of topographic information indicated that such a connection is non-existent. Water levels would have to rise over 15 feet to facilitate such a connection. In addition, there is no historical record of such a connection ever existing.

2. Prevention of Fish 'Transfer: There are two basic approaches to the problem of preventing the transfer of fish from the iilissouri River Drainage Basin to the Hudson Bay Drainage Basin that were investigated by the Engineering Committee. These are: (1) the provision of a master barrier in the primary artery feeding the entire irrigation project, namely, the McClusky Canal; (2) the elimination of all surface water connections between any part of the irrigation system and the receiving rivers in Canada.

In the authorized GDU plan, the USBR has adopted the first approach using a fish screen structure. Critics have asserted that the fish screen structure is not 100 percent effective. On the other hand, the Biology Committee has indicated that if the only irrigation water finally accruing to streams in the Hudson Bay Drainage was that which had passed through the soil column, i.e., that none was allowed to accrue via surface flow, then no fish, larvae, parasites or diseases could pass from the one drainage basin to the other.

The Engineering Committee examined both approaches in detail. These are discussed in the following two subsections.

a. Barrier Concept:

1. NcClusky Canal Fish Screen Structure.

Description: The McClusky Canal fish screen is located 6 4 miles downstream of the canal headworks (see Plate E - 1 ) . Its function is

29

t o s c r e e n a l l water f lowing th rough th i s p r imary supply cana l f rom t h e M i s s o u r i River b a s i n t o L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r , i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e i n t e r - b a s i n t r a n s f e r o f f i s h , f i s h e g g s a n d larvae. The Biology Commi t t ee has a s se r t ed t ha t t h i s mus t be a f a i l - s a f e s y s t e m b e c a u s e e v e n o n e a c c i d e n t a l s p i l l o f u n s c r e e n e d water would permanently n u l l i f y t h e p u r p o s e o f i t s e x i s t e n c e by a l lowing Missour i Bas in b i o t a t o become e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r a n d h e n c e t h e Hudson Bay Basin.

The p r i n c i p l e o f i t s o p e r a t i o n , as des igned by the USBR, i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e E-2. Water f rom the cana l pas ses t h rough a t r a s h r a c k a n d e n t e r s t h e m a i n c e n t r a l c h a m b e r o f t h e s t r u c t u r e , 173 f e e t l o n g , c l o s e d a t the downstream end. From h e r e i t f lows over b o t h s i d e walls of the chamber onto a series o f i n c l i n e d 40-mesh s c r e e n s e c t i o n s . T h e s e are t o b e f a b r i c a t e d w i t h s u p p o r t i n g 2-mesh material and s tee l framing. The water f a l l s t h r o u g h t h e s e s c r e e n s , down through a s e c o n d p a r a l l e l series of sc reens mounted severa l i nches be low, i n to t he d i scha rge chamber unde rnea th , and t hen f l ows f r o m t h e d o w n s t r e a m e n d o f t h e s t r u c t u r e i n t o t h e c a n a l .

The ma in s c reens s lope downward, away from the chamber walls. De t r i t u s and deb r i s s c reened f rom the water accummulates on the uppe r pane l s , be ing g radua l ly washed down t o t h e i r o u t e r e d g e by t h e f l o w of water, o r p e r i o d i c a l l y c l e a n e d o f f m a n u a l l y , i n t o l o n g i - t u d i n a l c o l l e c t i o n t r o u g h s . T h i s material and any unscreened over f low water passes t h rough a p o r t i n t o wells, one l oca t ed a t e a c h s i d e o f t h e s t r u c t u r e . The material then f l ows t o a p a i r of smaller 40-mesh a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s . Here t h e material i s sepa ra t ed f rom the ove r f low water, wh ich t hen pas ses on i n to t h e c a n a l . P r o v i s i o n i s a l s o made f o r d e w a t e r i n g t h e m a i n c e n t - r a l chamber, when n e c e s s a r y , a n d t h i s water is dra ined th rough p i p e s l e a d i n g t o t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s . To f a c i l i t a t e c l e a n i n g o f t h e s c r e e n s a moveable bu lkhead suppor ted f rom the ce i l ing i s t o b e provided which may b e lowered t o s top t he f l ow ove r several s c r e e n s e c t i o n s .

E f fec t iveness : Examina t ion o f t he func t ion and des ign of the f i sh sc reen by bo th the Bio logy and Engineer ing Commit tees genera ted many q u e s t i o n s , t h e a n s w e r s t o w h i c h were r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o assess i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a b a r r i e r a g a i n s t i n t e r - b a s i n t r a n s f e r s of f i s h . P r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s e v e n t u a l l y l e d t o n i n e s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s . The two committees m e t j o i n t l y w i t h USBR t e c h n i c a l s t a f f a t the Bureau’s Engineer ing and Research Center , Denver , Colorado , to ob ta in answers to them. T h e s e d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e f i s h s c r e e n are more f u l l y r e p o r t e d i n A p p e n d i x C - Biology. The n i n e t e c h n i c a l q u e s - t ions , and the answers p rovided by t h e B u r e a u a t t h e D e n v e r meet ing, are l i s t e d i n A t t a c h m e n t E-2. I n fo rma t ion ob ta ined f r o m t h e d e s i g n e r s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a l s o a s s i s t e d t h e E n g i n e e r - ing Committee i n f o r m u l a t i n g some s u g g e s t e d s t r u c t u r a l modi- f i c a t i o n s . B a s e d o n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n a n d o t h e r a v a i l a b l e i n -

30

t

F I G U R E E - 2

NOTE: NOT TO SCALE

\ SCREENED - + & "

WATER

FISH SCREEN AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED BY THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

31

fornation, it is the opinion of the Engineering Committee that there are inherent weaknesses in the existing design which can be overcome. In a review of other concepts for screening, none appear to have the potential to work as effectively as the present strucute. Thus modification of the existing structure is the best way to provide an effective barrier.

Modifications: From testi.mony at the public hearings, discussions with Board and Biology Committee members, a site inspection of the partially completed structure, an examination of the hydraulic model of a screen panel in the USBR laboratory at Denver, and the Engineering Committee’s own consideration of technical details, a consolidated list was compiled of the perceived or alleged weaknesses in the design of the structure, and other concerns, which have been pointed out by various critics. This list is as follows: a) Passage of some fish larvae through a 40-mesh screen. b) Inadvertent transfer of fish, etc., during screen cleaning operations, particularly when lower screen is removed. c) Lodgement and survival of organisms in crevices around the screens, with the possibility of eventual transfer. d) Possibility of relatively large objects passing through the trash racks and falling onto the screens, causing a tear or rupture. e) Vulnerability of the auxiliary screens to damage and thus the passage of fish. f) Inability to positively and rapidly shut down flow through the fish screen structure in an emergency. g) Beliance on manual labour for the removal of collected detritus. h) Lack of data on the operation of fish screens under conditions similar to those in the McClusky Canal system. i) Problem of totally sealing the bulkhead assembly when closing off the flow over a screen for cleaning purposes. j) Problem of direct overflow along the surface of seals between upper screen sections. k) Limited capacity of the auxiliary screens to handle high volumes of water or water high in solids content. 1) Possibility of poor working conditions inside structure for the maintenance crew.

A variety of structural or other modifications aimed at correcting these weaknesses was considered by the Engineering Committee. The following were ultimately selected as being the most effective. The guiding principles in striving for a fail- safe system have been (1) wherever possible, to avoid sophis- ticated mechanical devices which could introduce increased chances of operational failure, and (2) to keep maintenance procedures basically simple.

i) Complete Sealing of Lower Main Screens: This modification would involve substituting the use of screen sections

33

with one continuous screen completely and positively sealed along both sides and each end. It would have a similar method of structural support as presently conceived. Routine cleaning of this lower screen would be accomplished by backwashing with moving high-pressure sprays of screened water from underneath the screen, the nozzle movements being synchronized with the travelling bulkhead assembly which temporarily isolates the area being cleaned. This arrangement would eliminate the necessity of removing the lower screen for routine cleaning. When removal of the screen for replacement is necessary, it would only be done during a total shut-down of the facility. The advantages of this proposed modification would be to overcome the following weaknesses listed above: (b), (c) and (i). The only apparent disadvantages would be the introduction and added cost of the backwashing equipment, which would also increase maintenance costs, and possible higher costs and prac- tical difficulties of screen replacement.

ii) Change of Screen Mesh Size: To prevent the passage of fish eggs and larvae (item (a) above), the Biology Committee proposed that 60-mesh screening be installed in lieu of the presently contemplated 40-mesh for all screens. The main screen area required for the maximum design flow of 2,000 cfs is primarily dependent upon such parameters as mesh size, screen slope, hydraulic characteristics and an adequate safety factor. The present design is based on a 100 percent safety factor. Thus, modifying the mesh size would require either structural changes (e.g., screen slope and/or area), reduced flow capacity and/or reduced safety factor. The extent of any such changes cannot be accurately determined without further hydraulic model testing and experimentation.

iii) Installation of Travelling Screen: A travelling screen installed between the trash rack and the main chamber of the structure would reduce the amount of material reaching the main screens. The USBR design provides space for such an installation. Power would be required for its operation. The screen should have a 1/4 inch mesh. The trash rack having arrested major floating debris, the travelling screen would then stop anything else big enough to be capable of damaging the main screens. Both the trash rack and the travelling screen should have continuously operating automated equipment for removing accumulated material. This would meet criticism (d) in respect to fish or objects reaching the screens and impinging on them via water flow.

iv) Improved Fow Control: The fish screen facility has been designed by the USBR so that the maximum flow of 2,000 cfs can be passed even if 50 percent of the area of the main screens becomes clogged with detritus. However, if such an extreme condition developed it would nevertheless be desirable to cut back the flow while cleaning operations are carried out. It is proposed that this be accomplished automatically. A s a result of screen clogging,

34

t h e r e would be an increasing amount of water p a s s i n g o v e r t h e m a i n u p p e r s c r e e n s , i n t o t h e t r o u g h s a n d t h u s d i r e c t l y t o t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s . S e n s o r s , p r e f e r a b l y l o c a t e d b e t w e e n t h e u p p e r ana l ower ma in s c reens nea r t he i r ou te r edge , wou ld be ac t iva t ed when water starts f a l l i n g t h r o u g h them a t t h i s p o i n t , a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t c l o g g i n g o f t h e s c r e e n is inc reas ing and p reven t ing a l l t h e water f rom pas s ing t h rough t he h ighe r areas o f t h e s c r e e n s i n t he no rma l way. When t h e s e n s o r s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s f l o w h a s reached a p re - se t l i m i t , t h e y w o u l d t r i g g e r r e l a y s t h a t w o u l d a c t i v a t e t h e m a c h i n e r y f o r c l o s i n g t h e u p s t r e a m c o n t r o l g a t e s i n t h e c a n a l . G r a d u a l c l o s u r e ( a n d s u b s e q u e n t r e o p e n i n g ) of t h e s e g a t e s would be accomplished so as t o r e g u l a t e t h e c a n a l f l o w a c c o r d - i n g t o t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e s c r e e n s .

The p rov i s ion o f such an au tomat i c f l ow con t ro l sys t em, however , is n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e i n i t s e l f a n a d e q u a t e a n s w e r t o i tem ( f ) i n t h e l i s t of weaknesses ident i f ied above . I t i s t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e d t h a t a n a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l g a t e b e i n s t a l l e d i m m e d i a t e l y a b o v e t h e f i s h s c r e e n s t r u c t u r e . I n a n e m e r g e n c y , t h i s g a t e , c a p a b l e o f b e i n g a c t i v a t e d e i t h e r m a n u a l l y o r by s e n s o r s , would be immedia te ly shut down t o c u t o f f f l o w f r o m t h e c a n a l i n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e . T h i s would be much qu icke r t han r e ly ing on f l ow cut -of f a t t h e n e a r e s t e x i s t i n g u p s t r e a m g a t e , a b o u t 9 miles away, because the volume of water wh ich has a l r eady pas sed t he gate and remains to be discharged f rom the main chamber onto t h e s c r e e n s ( i . e . , u n t i l t h e h e a d of water over the chamber wal l s h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e l y d i s s i p a t e d ) i s ve ry much smaller. Depend ing on t he capac i ty o f t he d ra in o r pumping system for l o w e r i n g t h e water l e v e l b e l o w t h e t o p o f t h e s e wal ls , t h e t i m e l a p s e b e t w e e n g a t e c l o s u r e a n d t o t a l c e s s a t i o n of f low over the main sc reens w i l l be about 30-45 minutes. Assuming the emergency cons is t s o f damage t o t h e u p p e r s c r e e n , t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t he s c reen ing p rocess wou ld be ma in ta ined by t h e l o w e r s c r e e n d u r i n g t h i s i n t e r v a l .

v ) Pump-back of Unscreened Water: I t i s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n i n g a r r a n g e m e n t as p r e s e n t l y d e s i g n e d h a s a g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y o f f a i l i n g t h a n t h e m a i n s c r e e n s . T h e s e smaller i n c l i n e d s c r e e n s , w h i c h a t times c o u l d b e s u b j e c t t o s e v e r e water and d e t r i t u s l o a d i n g , r e p r e s e n t t h e l a s t b a r r i e r t o any f i s h , f i s h e g g s a n d larvae t h a t h a v e p a s s e d o v e r , r a t h e r t han t h rough t he ma in s c reens . It i s t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e d t h a t a l l water p a s s i n g t h e s e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s b e c o l l e c t e d a n d pumped b a c k u p s t r e a m o f t h e s t r u c t u r e i n s t e a d o f b e i n g r e l e a s e d b e l o w i t . With t h i s c o n c e p t , t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s would no longer be of c r i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e b e c a u s e t h e i r f u n c t i o n would be to merely remove debris before pumping. Fine mesh sc reen ing wou ld be unnecessa ry ; i n f ac t , t he s c reens cou ld be rep laced by hydro-s ieves . These are s t e e p l y i n c l i n e d p a r a b o l i c s c r e e n s ( u s u a l l y p e r f o r a t e d p l a t e s ) u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n i n d u s t r i a l

35

applications to remove solids from water. They would be rigid and not subject to puncturing. Collected debris would be mechanical- ly raised to the surface for disposal.

This pump-back proposal addresses criticisms (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (j) and (k) by ensuring that no unscreened water or fish organisms which enter the waste troughs could reach the canal downstream of the structure.

vi) Working Conditions: The Engineering Committee is of the opinion that working conditions inside the structure must be considered in its design. Poor working conditions could be conducive to inefficiency and improper procedures on the part of the maintenance crew, resulting in impaired effectiveness of the facility. Potential safety hazards should be eliminated for the same reason. Attention should be given, for example, to providing adequate ventilation and lighting; elevated non- skid walkways over those areas requiring observation and servicing; and, to the maximum extent possible, automated equipment for the removal and disposal of accumulated debris and detritus. Such measures would address criticisms (g) and (1).

vii) Modelling: The foregoing suggested modifications aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the fish screen structure are based on the Committee's examination of its present design, recognizing that it has not yet been finalized by the USBR. For this reason the suggestions are necessarily more conceptual than detailed. Noreover, the detailed design of the modifications will in many cases be dependent on the associated operating and maintenance procedures. Although fish or weed screening facilities are not new (the Engineering and Biology Committees sent a joint team to examine a number of such installations in western U.S.A. in June 1976), the McClusky Canal structure is probably unique in the rigorousness of its functional requirements. An insufficient body of knowledge exists to enable accurate predictions to be made of how well it will perform and what operating difficulties may be encountered (criticism (h)).

This Committee therefore considers it imperative that, prior to being placed in service, operational modelling should be carried out to provide data for the final design details and the development of 0 & M procedures. Such a model should consist of a full-size replica of a section of the prototype, perhaps several screen panels wide, and not a scaled-down version. The water should be that which will be flowing in the McClusky Canal and not drawn from some different source. The testing should be carried out so that Missouri River water will not be released to the Hudson Bay Basin and under conditions as nearly as possible the same as the prototype. One possible means of meeting these criteria would be to block off a small

36

segment of the main chamber of the present structure and run tests with small flows proportionally equivalent to operational flows through the full chamber. The outlet facilities would be sealed and all test water pumped back via a pipeline either to the Missouri River or elsewhere safely within its Basin.

Costs: A s indicated in the foregoing paragraph, it is not possible to provide details of modifications to various features of the structure which have themselves not yet been finally designed. For the same reason, detailed cost estimates cannot be prepared. However, an order-of-magnitude estimate of the aggregate capital cost of the alterations, exclusive of possible structural modifications to the existing structure suggested above, is $2,000,000. Annual operating and maintenance costs would probably be increased by $50,000. It is not possible to estimate the cost of the model testing program.

Implementation Schedule: For obvious reasons, all the suggested modifications would have to be accomplished before the fish screen structure is placed in service.

2 . Other Barrier Concepts. Four alternative concepts for creating a barrier against the transfer of fish through the McClusky Canal were examined.

i) Screen-pump System: The Biology Committee requested an assessment of the feasibility from an engineering point of view of an alternative fish screen concept, involving a pumping system, which had been proposed to that committee (see Appendix C - Biology). The concept envisaged a centrifugal pump to pass water up over a barrier from a "donor" basin to a ''receiving" basin. The latter would be at a water elevation sufficiently high above the former to prevent the barrier being surmounted by any species of fish and to prevent any flow over it at maximum stage in the donor basin, The intake to the pump would be screened under water.

The Engineering Committee noted that the author of the concept was apparently seeking a method of stopping the flow of water in- stantaneously, or as soon as possible, in the event of a screen failure and felt that shutting down a pumping plant would be faster than shutting down a canal system. However, when considering fail-safe transfer systems, it comes down to the probability of a simultaneous failure of all screens, along with the probability of immediately detecting it, and then shutting down the system. With this in mind, the Committee was not prepared to agree that this pumping scheme would be any more fail-safe than the existing fish screen. In addition, certain features of the pumping concept were technically less desirable than the present fish screen, e.g., the pump intake screen would be under water and this would not permit visual inspection of the screen during operation.

37

The c a p i t a l c o s t of t h i s pumping concept would be nearly $20,000,000. Annual operation and maintenance would be approximate ly $50,000, p lus $120 ,000 fo r ene rgy cos t s .

i i ) O z o n a t i o n : The Biology Committee requested that con- s i d e r a t i o n b e g i v e n t o i n s t a l l i n g o z o n a t i o n e q u i p m e n t i n con- j u n c t i o n w i t h e i t h e r t h e e x i s t i n g McClusky C a n a l f i s h s c r e e n o r some o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e .

Recent work commissioned by the Environmental Protection Serv ice o f Envi ronment Canada ind ica ted tha t a 99 .95 pe rcen t b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l k i l l c o u l d b e a c h i e v e d w i t h a 2-minute contact time a t 3 .5 ppm ozone and tha t 99 .98 p e r c e n t k i l l c o u l d b e ach ieved w i th a 5-minute contac t time a t t h e same c o n c e n t r a t i o n . The re fo re , i t was assumed t h a t i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e c o n s i s t e n t d i s i n f e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s , a 5-minute contac t time a t a 5 ppm dosage would be requi red . This contac t time and dosage con- c e n t r a t i o n were v e r i f i e d i n v e r b a l d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h a c o n s u l t - and and o t h e r Committee members. However, i t was a g r e e d t h a t u n d e r t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l r e m o v a l e f f i c i e n c i e s would not be 100 p e r c e n t .

Using a flow of 2,000 c f s and an ozone dosage of 5 ppm, i t was calculated that 55,000 pounds of ozone would be required d a i l y . A suppl ie r o f ozonat ion equipment , approached wi th the f o r e g o i n g d a t a , p r o v i d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g estimate o f c o s t s . The c a p i t a l c o s t of a f a c i l i t y h a v i n g t h e r e q u i r e d c a p a c i t y would be approximate ly $163 m i l l i o n , a l m o s t h a l f o f i t for equipment a n d t h e r e m a i n d e r f o r a s s o c i a t e d c i v i l s t r u c t u r e s . The d a i l y ene rgy cos t s wou ld be i n excess o f $7,000.

I n summary, o z o n a t i o n o f t h e GDU waters would ach ieve ve ry h igh d i s i n f e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s u n d e r t h e c o n d i t i o n s n o t e d b u t m o s t l i k e l y no t 100 p e r c e n t . The c o s t s would be very high.

i i i ) Sand F i l t r a t i o n of McClusky Canal Flows: The Engineer- ing Committee was r e q u e s t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f p a s s i n g t h e e n t i r e c a n a l f l o w t h r o u g h a s a n d f i l t e r as a means o f p r e v e n t i n g t h e t r a n s f e r o f f i s h a n d b i o t a . T h i s t e c h n i q u e , 'nowever, r e q u i r e s a backwash c y c l e t o remove accumulated sedi- m e n t f r o m t h e f i l t e r m e d i a . The volume of backwash water i s approximate ly 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e f i l t e r t h r o u g h p u t , o r a b o u t 100 c f s . T h i s water mus t t hen be t r ea t ed . No d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n of t h e t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s was c a r r i e d o u t , b u t i t was d e t e r - mined t h a t t h e y would b e e x t e n s i v e . F a c i l i t i e s o f t h i s s i z e would be about e igh t times l a r g e r t h a n a n y e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t y . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , o p e r a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s , t h e r e q u i r e d p h y s i c a l i n s t a l l a t i o n , and t h e i r p r o b a b l e c o s t are a l l d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r - mine . Neve r the l e s s , t he e s t ima ted cos t wou ld be i n t he o rde r of a t least $190,000,000.

38

iv) Microscreens: The Committee also investigated the possibility of using microscreens (or "microstrainers") as an alternative to the present fish screen structure.

Microscreen installations are commonly used for removing SUS-

pended solids during treatment of municipal drinking water supplies. The world's largest installation is operated by the Denver Board of Water Commissioners at the Marston, Colorado, water treatment plant. This facility utilizes ten microscreens 12 feet in diameter, operated in parallel to treat 60 million gallons per day (MGD). Fabric screens of 400-mesh are used.

The most important consideration in investigating the use of t h i s type of facility as an alternative to the McClusky Canal fish screen is whether or not the rotating microscreens will make an effective seal around their edges as they rotate around the axis of the structure. There are two ways in which the seals could be rendered ineffective: (1) lodgement of a stick or other stiff object between the rubber seal and the edges of the structure; and (2) normal wear and tear on the seal itself. Unless these seals are completely effective, it is possible that undesirable organisms could pass through the facility, regardless of the mesh size used.

The Engineering Committee contacted the Denver Water Board regarding the effectiveness of the seals around the edges of the screens. It was reported that, while the maintenance of a perfect seal was not a mandatory consideration for the operation of a municipal water treatment facility, microscopic analyses of the screened water have revealed the presence of algae larger than the openings in the screen fabric, which indicates that the fabric screens had been perforated, or that leakage of unscreened water around the seals had taken place.

Uncertainties regarding the maintenance of a perfect seal around the screen edges offer sufficient justification for the Engineering Committee to reject the suggestion that microscreens could be used in lieu of the XcClusky Canal fish screen. Other factors considered were size and associated equipment requirements.

The maximum flow in the canal will be approximately 2,000 cfs, which is equivalent to 1,280 MGD, over twenty times the size o f the installation operated near Denver. Although detailed cost estimates were not prepared, it was felt that the massive size and associated operation and maintenance problems offer further justification for rejecting this alternative.

To fully provide for maintenance of the integrity of a small mesh screen, additional "pre-treatment" of the water, using a travelling screen or similar facility, would probably be necessary. The McClusky Canal fish screen could be used to meet this requirement, thus avoiding further costs.

39

b . E l imina t ion o f Rou tes of F i s h M i g r a t i o n a n d T r a n s f e r Due t o GDU: C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r o u t e s o f f i s h m i g r a t i o n a n d t r a n s f e r i d e n t i f i e d a b o v e , l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f a l l d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n GDU (Missour i R ive r ) su r f ace water and r ece iv ing streams f l o w i n g i n t o C a n a d a w i t h t h e p u r p o s e o f e l i m i n a t - i n g t h e t r a n s f e r of f i s h and b io ta . These a re descr ibed be low:

1. Storage and Re-use of Operat ional Wastewater.

P u r p o s e : I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h i s a l t e r a t i o n w o u l d e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d i r e c t s u r f a c e water connect ion between GDU (Missour i R ive r ) waters and Canadian receiving streams v i a t h e p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n a l w a s t e w a y s . O p e r a t i o n a l wastes (water s u r p l u s t o i r r i g a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s ) would be s tored and re-used r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g d i s c h a r g e d t o a n y r e c e i v i n g stream which f lows i n t o Canada.

D e s c r i p t i o n : Water d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m s t o s e r v e t h e en- t i r e 250,000 acres are b e i n g d e s i g n e d f o r s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . The p r o j e c t s y s t e m s w i l l d e l i v e r water t o t h e f a rm boundar i e s where t he f a rm ope ra to r w i l l p rov ide a pump, m o t o r a n d s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e water t o t h e l a n d t h r o u g h h i g h p r e s s u r e n o z z l e s ( F i g u r e E-1). A p p l i c a t i o n rates w i l l be m a t c h e d t o s o i l i n t a k e rates t o p r e v e n t s u r f a c e r u n - o f f . T h i s o p e r a t i o n w i l l e f f e c t i v e l y p r e v e 2 t a n y t r a n s f e r o f f i s h o r f i s h e g g s . T h e r e i s s t i l l a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t v i r u s and b a c t e r i a c o u l d f i n d a s u r f a c e r o u t e t o t h e d r a i n a g e s y s t e m , b u t o n l y d u r i n g h i g h i n t e n s i t y r a i n s w h i l e t h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m was o p e r a t i n g . A l l r e t u r n f l o w f r o m t h e a p p l i e d i r r i g a t i o n water w o u l d b e f i l t e r e d t h r o u g h t h e s o i l b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e d r a i n s y s t e m .

During the normal water d e l i v e r y o p e r a t i o n o f a n i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t u s i n g o p e n c a n a l s , a c e r t a i n p o r t i o n of water i n excess of i r r i g a t i o n n e e d s i s t r a n s p o r t e d i n the canal . T l l i s excess water a s s u r e s a n a d e q u a t e s u p p l y t o a l l i r r i g a t o r s w i t h less r e g u l a t i o n o f c a n a l f l o w s . Unused f low is wasted a t t h e end o f t he cana l t h rough a wasteway overf low and drain. This f low i s c a l l e d o p e r a t i o n a l waste and commonly a m o u n t s t o f i v e p e r c e n t of c a n a l d e l i v e r y . In a d d i t i o n t o t h i s , t h e r e a re emergency waste f lows . A t times o f power f a i l u r e , o r , i f f o r o t h e r r e a s o n s a sudden shutdown should occur , the water f l o w i n g i n t h e cana l mus t have an ou t l e t . The wasteway overflows and open d r a i n s t a k e care of t h i s emergency waste.

It i s p r o p o s e d t o p r e v e n t t h e t r a n s f e r o f f i s h and o the r b i o t a by t h e i r r i g a t i o n o p e r a t i o n s b y p r e v e n t i n g a n y d i r e c t f l o w f r o m t h e i r r i g a t i o n d e l i v e r y s y s t e m t o t h e o p e n d r a i n s y s t e m . Several m e t h o d s c o u l d b e u s e d t o p r e v e n t t h i s d i r e c t f l o w . T h e s e

40

i n c l u d e (1) pond s t o r a g e of waste w i t h pump-back i n t o t h e c a n a l ; ( 2 ) s t o r a g e w i t h i n t h e c a n a l b y p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l f r e e b o a r d a n d c h e c k s t r u c t u r e s ; a n d ( 3 ) e i t h e r a l e v e l o r reverse s l o p e cana l concep t .

The pond s to rage and pump-back method (Figure E-3) was s e l e c t e d s i n c e i t l e n d s i t s e l f more t o a c o s t p e r acre p r o j e c t i o n f r o m t h e East Oakes Area t o t h e o t h e r Areas. East Oakes i s t h e o n l y a r e a o f t h e GDU f o r w h i c h d e t a i l e d d e s i g n o f t h e i r r i g a t i o n water d e l i v e r y s y s t e m i s a v a i l a b l e . C o s t f i g u r e s f o r t h i s a l t e r a t i o n were p r o j e c t e d on a c o s t p e r a c r e b a s i s t o t h e o t h e r i r r i g a t i o n areas d r a i n i n g i n t o C a n a d a .

The i r r i g a b l e areas of GDU t h a t d r a i n t o r e c e i v i n g streams f lowing to Canada are i n d i c a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b u l a t i o n :

Areas I r r i g a b l e Acres

Middle Sour i s Area 1 0 3 , 800

Karls ruhe Area 12,200

Warwick-McVille Area 34,100

New Rockford Area 20,935

Oakes-East Side Area 26 , 320

T o t a l 197 , 355

Eng inee r ing and cos t da t a were developed by the USBR a t t h e r e q u e s t of the Engineer ing Commit tee .

S t ruc tu ra l o r o the r Phys ica l Requ i remen t s : Th i s me thod of e l i m i n a t i n g waste water e n t e r i n g t h e d r a i n s y s t e m r e q u i r e s s t o r a g e b a s i n s l a r g e e n o u g h t o h o l d t h e o p e r a t i o n a l waste f o r a reason- ab le per iod p lus the emergency was te f rom a sudden shutdown. A pumping p l a n t is a l s o r e q u i r e d t o r e t u r n t h e waste water t o t h e c a n a l .

Pond s t o r a g e f o r o p e r a t i o n a l waste was set a t t h e e q u i v a l e n t of f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e c a n a l d e s i g n c a p a c i t y f l o w i n g t h r o u g h t h e wasteway f o r two days. This would a l low a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e o f waste under normal operat ional f lows, which would be less t h a n des ign capac i ty f l ows . A t p e a k i r r i g a t i o n demand and des ign c a p a c i t y c a n a l f l o w s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m w o u l d h a v e a smaller a l l o w a n c e f o r o p e r a t i o n a l waste. Thus t h e r e i s only a s l i g h t c h a n c e t h a t f i v e p e r c e n t waste would occur a t p e a k i r r i g a t i o n demand.

4 1

The emergency waste storage was based on a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e a l l t h e pumps, a long and a t t he ends o f t he open cana l s , shu t down. The m a i n s u p p l y c o n t i n u e s t o f l o w u n t i l p e r s o n n e l c a n b e a l e r t e d a n d travel t o t h e l o c a t i o n s t o s h u t down supply pumps a n d c l o s e c a n a l c h e c k s . T o t a l pond s torage requi rements would b e t h e sum of th i s ope ra t iona l and emergency was tewa te r .

S e l e c t i o n o f e a c h wastewater s t o r a g e pond s i t e was based on t he premise t h a t t h e s i t e shou ld be a s c lo se t o t he was t eway s t r u c t u r e as p r a c t i c a l a n d o n l a n d o f l o w v a l u e , i f p o s s i b l e . The area covered by a pond is dependent upon two f a c t o r s , c a p a c i t y and water d e p t h . The dep th o f excava t ion i s dependent upon t h e l e v e l o f t h e water tab le . Water depth i s a l so dependen t on t h e l eve l o f t he wastewater o u t l e t , t o a l l o w t h e wastewater t o f l o w i n t o t h e pond by g r a v i t y . Water d e p t h s f r o m f i v e t o t e n f e e t were c o n s i d e r e d t o b e p r a c t i c a l . D i k e s t o t h e h e i g h t o f t he cana l embankmen t . a re r equ i r ed t o con f ine was t ewa te r w i th in the pond ing area. These dikes would be earth embankments with a 20 f o o t t o p w i d t h , 2:l o u t s i d e s l o p e s a n d 4:l i n s i d e s l o p e s . They would be constructed of ear th removed f rom the pond a r e a . The s i d e s l o p e s w o u l d b e d r e s s e d w i t h s i x i n c h e s o f t o p s o i l , f e r t i l i z e d a n d s e e d e d t o g r a s s . Due t o t h e s h a l l o w d e p t h o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l wastewater, t h e small pond area, t h e f l a t s l o p e s , t h e v e g e t a t e d s h o r e l i n e a n d t h e s h o r t d u r a t i o n o f t h e e m e r g e n c y s t o r a g e , e r o s i o n would be minimal. No r o c k r i p r a p w i l l b e r e q u i r e d . Any excess ea r th f rom the excava t ion wou ld be u sed t o w iden t h e t o p o f t h e embankment o r c a n a l b a n k s .

A pumping p l a n t would be loca ted a t e a c h s t o r a g e pond t o r e t u r n t h e wastewater back t o t h e c a n a l . Two pumps o f equa l s i z e are u s e d i n t h i s p l a n f o r e a c h pumping p l a n t . Each pump would be capable o f empty ing the s torage pond i n 48 hours . T h i s c a p a c i t y w o u l d m a i n t a i n r e a s o n a b l e o p e r a t i o n s i n c a s e o f t h e f a i l u r e of one pump. The pumping p l a n t s would be permanent o u t d o o r t y p e , e l e c t r i c a l l y d r i v e n , w i t h r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e i n t a k e p i t s , b a s e , d e c k s l a b a n d o u t l e t s t r u c t u r e .

Method o f Opera t ion : The ope ra t ion o f t h i s was t ewa te r s t o r a g e a n d pump-back system w i l l be a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t o p e r a t i n g p e r s o n n e l . They w i l l o p e r a t e t h e pumps t o empty the s torage ponds . Under normal condi t ions the ponds w i l l n o t b e a l l o w e d t o f i l l b e y o n d t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l capac i ty and w i l l be empt ied regular ly . Af te r an emergency shu tdown , t he s to red water w i l l b e pumped i n t o t h e c a n a l s a n d u s e d f o r i r r i g a t i o n s t a r t - u p . No water f rom the main supply w i l l b e a l l o w e d i n t h e c a n a l u n t i l t h e w a s t e w a t e r i n t h e s t o r a g e pond i s below the emergency waste c a p a c i t y l e v e l .

E f f e c t i v e n e s s : The e l i m i n a t i o n o f d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n s o f p r o j e c t w a s t e w a y s a n d t h e d r a i n s t o streams f lowing into Canada

42

TYPICAL WASTE WATER STORAGE POND AND PUMPING PLANT

w i l l b e a n e f f e c t i v e m e t h o d o f p r e v e n t i n g t h e t r a n s f e r o f f i s h a n d f i s h e g g s b e t w e e n d r a i n a g e b a s i n s . By d e l i v e r i n g t h e water t o t h e i r r i g a t e d l a n d t h r o u g h h i g h p r e s s u r e s p r i n k l e r n o z z l e s , w i t h r e l a t i v e l y small openings , f i sh would be p revented f rom pass ing and f i sh eggs wou ld be des t royed . The s p r i n k l e r - a p p l i e d i r r i g a t i o n water w o u l d h a v e t o i n f i l t r a t e t h r o u g h t h e s o i l t o r e a c h t h e d r a i n a g e s y s t e m , w h i c h w o u l d a l s o p r o v i d e a n e f f e c t i v e method t o p r e v e n t o r r e d u c e t h e t r a n s f e r o f v i r u s a n d b a c t e r i a be tween bas ins .

A r e d u c t i o n i n r e t u r n f l o w s d u e t o t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f o p e r a - t i o n a l waste w i l l occu r . The bes t estimate o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l waste by t h e Water Quantity Committee i s shown i n t h e f o l l o w i n g Table E-2.

Table E-2 : O p e r a t i o n a l Waste Flows (Acre-Feet)

May J u n e J u l y Aug. Sept . Annual

S o u r i s R i v e r Best Estimate 1 , 8 0 0 1 ,800 1 ,800 1 ,800 1 , 8 0 0 9 ,000

Sheyenne 9’ l v e r Best Estimate 780 780 780 780 780 3,900

Wild Rice River Best Estimate 280 2 80 280 280 280 1,400

Advan tages and Bene f i c i a l E f fec t s : Th i s a l t e r a t ion wou ld e l i m i n a t e a n y s l i g h t c h a n c e o f f i s h t r a n s f e r b a c k LO t h e M i s s o u r i Basin from Hudson Bay Bas in th rough the d ra in sys tem. This i s the on ly method of those reviewed by the Engineer ing Commit tee tha t wou ld economica l ly r educe and e f f ec t ive ly e l imina te t he v i r u s a n d b a c t e r i a t r a n s f e r . It w o u l d r e d u c e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of d i sease -caused f i she ry l o s ses t o Canada . Seve ra l me thods of e l i m i n a t i n g w a s t e w a y t o d r a i n c o n n e c t i o n s c o u l d b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a n a d v a n c e d d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m w i t h a u t o m a t e d c o n t r o l s . This could make both sys tems more economica l . Dra in capac i t ies could be smaller d u e t o t h i s r e d u c e d flow and some n a t u r a l c h a n n e l en la rgemen t cou ld be e l imina ted . Reduced quan t i ty of r e t u r n f low t o the Sour i s R ive r wou ld r educe t he f l ood ing p rob lem no r th of Westhope caused by GDU. On t h e a v e r a g e , 14,300 a c r e - f e e t pe r yea r wou ld no t be d ive r t ed f rom the Missour i R ive r and t hus w o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e w i t h i n t h e M i s s o u r i B a s i n .

45

Disadvantages: Additional cost, both capital and annual, would be a disadvantage of this alternative and will be addressed under costs of alteration. Another disadvantage would be an increase in the concentration of TDS in the return flow into Canada.

Costs: In order to arrive at a cost for the elimination of wasteway-to-drain connections, the storage and pump-back method of control was used. The method was applied to the East Oakes Irrigation District. Per acre costs arrived at in East Oakes were then applied to all other areas draining to Canada.

The East Oakes area requires six wasteways. The storage pond for each wasteway contains capacity for operational and emergency waste. The operational waste is five percent of the design capacity of the canal flowing for 4 8 hours and equals 124 acre-feet. Emergency shutdown waste is based on a maximum shutdown condition requiring nearly four hours to complete. The emergency waste capacity for this shutdown is 1 4 8 acre-feet, for a total storage requirement of 272 acre-feet. The six ponds needed to contain this storage will require approximately 60 acres. Pumping units to empty these ponds are sized to remove all the wastewater in 24 hours. Two pumps are planned for each waste pond, so that, in case of a pump failure, the remaining pump can empty the pond in 4 8 hours. Pumping plants vary in capacity from 1 4 cfs to 60 cfs.

The total cost to construct the six wastewater storage ponds and associated pumping plants is $ 2 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 for East Oakes or $102 per acre. Average annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs total $ 1 4 , 2 0 0 annually or $0.54 per acre. These costs are then projected to all GDU areas that drain to Canada on the same per acre basis. The Velva Canal contains a wasteway which discharges to the Souris River. Eliminating this wasteway would require adding three checks in t h e canal to contain the water. The additional cost is $1,500,000.

A projection of the cost to the irrigable lands draining to Canada, plus the extra Velva Canal cost in the Middle Souris Area, is shown in Table E-3.

2 . Lonetree Outlet Works. The Lonetree Reservoir is an integral part of the GDU. Its purpose is to provide a regulation reservoir between the McClusky Canal and the Velva and New Rockford Canals. It will be located at the headwaters of the Sheyenne, Wintering and James Rivers and will be created by constructing earth dams or dykes across the three watercourses. The Lonetree Dam on the Sheyenne River will have a maximum height of 90 feet, the Wintering Dam a maximum height of 40 feet and the James River Dyke a maximum height of 27 feet.

46

Table E-3: S torage and Re-Use o f Opera t iona l Wastewater

P r o j e c t i o n o f C a p i t a l a n d 0 6 $1 C o s t s

Area

Middle Sour i s (102 ,800 acres )

Kar l s ruhe (12 ,200 ac re s )

Warwick-McVille (34,100 acres)

New Rockford (20,935 acres)

East Oakes (26,320 a c r e s )

To ta l (197 ,355 ac re s )

To t a l Cons t ruc t i on

c o s t ($102/Ac.)

$12,090,000

1,240,000

3,480,000

2,140,000

2,680,000

$21,630,000

T o t a l Annual

0 M + R Cost ($0.54/Ac.)

$ 56,100

6,600

18,400

11,300

14 ,200

$106,600

The d r a i n a g e area t r i b u t a r y t o t h e r e s e r v o i r i s r e l a t i v e l y sma l l , be ing on ly abou t 140 s q u a r e miles. The des ign o f t he Reservoi r i s s u c h t h a t i n m o s t c a s e s r u n o f f water f r o m t h e t r i b u t a r y a r e a w i l l be s to red above t he no rma l ope ra t ing l eve l and subsequen t - l y d r a i n e d f r o m t h e r e s e r v o i r v i a t h e New Rockford Canal into t h e James River Feeder Canal. To p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l r e s e r v o i r r e g u l a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y during extreme inflow e v e n t s , ( f l o o d s w i t h a r e t u r n p e r i o d of 200 yea r s o r more ) a c o n d u i t w i t h a capac i ty o f 400 c f s i s t o b e p r o v i d e d t h r o u g h t h e b a s e o f t h e Lonet ree Dam o n t h e S h e y e n n e R i v e r . I n a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g e v a c u a t i o n c a p a c i t y f o r rare f l o o d e v e n t s , t h i s c o n d u i t w o u l d a l s o b e u s e d t o d r a i n t h e r e s e r v o i r f o r e m e r g e n c y r e p a i r s t o t h e e a r t h dams and dykes.

The North Dakota State Water Commission has requested that Lonet ree Darn a l s o i n c l u d e t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o release 20 c f s f o r downstream uses . Using the same i n t a k e s t r u c t u r e a n d c o n c r e t e c o n d u i t as t h e 4 0 0 c f s o u t l e t , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a steel p i p e l i n e w h i c h b y p a s s e s t h e m a i n c o n t r o l g a t e s i n t h e 400 c f s o u t l e t , t h e 20 c f s releases are p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t o p e r a t i n g t h e l a r g e r c o n t r o l g a t e s . The s t e e l p i p e l i n e i s c o n t r o l l e d s e p a r a t e l y

by va lves . Releases t h r o u g h t h i s f a c i l i t y w o u l d b e on a more c o n t i n u a l b a s i s f o r m u n i c i p a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l u s e s a n d f o r augmenting low stream f lows .

To e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s s i b l e t r a n s f e r o f b i o t a f r o m t h e p r o - posed 20 c f s o u t l e t t o t h e S h e y e n n e R i v e r , some form o f t r e a t m e n t must be provided. The Eng inee r ing Commi t t ee found s and f i l t e r s t o b e a n e f f e c t i v e m e t h o d o f t r e a t m e n t f o r d i s c h a r g e s o f t h i s s i z e . Sand f i l t e r s w i l l e f f e c t i v e l y remove f i s h , f i s h e g g s , and f i s h larvae, and can provide a h i g h d e g r e e o f b a c t e r i a l r e m o v a l e f f i c i e n c y .

The estimated c o s t of a s a n d f i l t e r t o t rea t the p roposed 20 c f s releases i s $1,900,000. T h i s c o s t estimate i n c l u d e s a water i n t a k e , pumping f a c i l i t i e s , m i x i n g a n d c o n d i t i o n i n g b a s i n s , d u a l m e d i a f i l t e r s , b a c k w a s h w a t e r s e t t l i n g p o n d s a n d a c o n t r o l b u i l d i n g .

A s a n d f i l t r a t i o n u n i t c o u l d a l s o b e i n s t a l l e d t o t reat t h e 400 c f s releases t o t h e S h e y e n n e River. However, pumping a n d a s s o c i a t e d c o s t s f o r a f a c i l i t y of t h i s s i z e are much g r e a t e r , a n d t h e p r o b l e m o f t r e a t m e n t a n d d i s p o s a l o f t h e f i l t e r e d material must a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d . The e s t i m a t e d c a p i t a l c o s t o f s u c h a f a c i l i t y i s $80,000,000.

A s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o p r o v i d i n g s a n d f i l t r a t i o n f o r t h e 400 c f s releases, c o n s i d e r a t i o n c o u l d b e g i v e n t o r e l o c a t i n g t h e p r o p o s e d o u t l e t w o r k s t o t h e James River . To accommodate t h i s p r o p o s a l , 27 miles of c h a n n e l i z a t i o n w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d w i t h c u t s up t o 50 f e e t , d u e t o t h e t o p o g r a p h y of t h e a r e a . E s t i m a t e d c o s t s are $25,500,000.

R e l o c a t i n g t h e 400 c f s o u t l e t w o r k s t o t h e James River would pe rmi t comple t e evacua t ion o f Lone t r ee Rese rvo i r , t he ma jo r pu rpose of t h i s o u t l e t . It i s u s u a l p r a c t i c e t o p r o v i d e s u c h c a p a b i l i t y f o r e a r t h s t r u c t u r e s of t h i s m a g n i t u d e . However, i f i t w a s de t e rmined t ha t t he capab i l i t y o f t he comple t e d ra in ing o f t he r e s e r v o i r w a s n o t n e c e s s a r y , o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d . These could range from a h i g h l e v e l o u t l e t i n t h e James River Dyke t o c o m p l e t e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e o u t l e t . I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e h i g h leve l o u t l e t a l t e r n a t i v e , pumping c a p a b i l i t y c o u l d be cons ide red fo r emergency r e se rvo i r drawdown. Cost estimates f o r t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s were no t p repa red .

3 . L i v i n g s t o n R e s e r v o i r . A s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , water would b e s u p p l i e d t o t h e C i t y of Minot, North Dakota, by pumping up t o 80 c f s of water from the Velva Canal through a 1 0 - m i l e p i p e l i n e t o a r e g u l a t i n g r e s e r v o i r o n L i v i n g s t o n C r e e k . A s p r e s e n t l y d e s i g n e d , t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s w o u l d p r o v i d e a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n between FI issouri River water and the Sour i s River which f lows into Canada , thus a l lowing a p o s s i b l e t r a n s f e r of b i o t a .

48

A s a n d f i l t e r c o u l d b e c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h e L i v i n g s t o n p i p e l i n e t u r n o u t t o t r ea t water b e f o r e i t i s p i p e d t o L i v i n g s t o n R e s e r v o i r . A s a n d f i l t e r c a p a b l e o f h a n d l i n g 80 c f s would cos t about $9 ,000 ,000 . Backwash water c o u l d b e s e t t l e d i n p o n d s f o r r e u s e by downstream i r r i g a t o r s .

An a l t e r n a t i v e w h i c h t h e USBR s t u d i e d as p a r t o f i t s i n v e s t i g a - t i o n s f o r t h e M i n o t water supp ly i nc luded a 39-mi le p ipe l ine from Lake Audubon t o a 7,000 a c r e - f o o t r e g u l a t i n g r e s e r v o i r on F i r s t L a r s o n C o u l e e , w h i c h i s a l s o a t r i b u t a r y t o t h e S o u r i s River o n t h e s o u t h s i d e o f t h e C i t y o f M i n o t . USBR estimates f o r t h i s p l a n i n d i c a t e t h a t i t would cos t about 25 percent more t h a n t h e a u t h o r i z e d p l a n f o r s e r v i n g t h e C i t y o f Flinot with a m u n i c i p a l water supp ly . While t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e s t i l l i n c l u d e s a reservoi r which would permi t releases i n t o t h e S o u r i s R i v e r , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e p l a n c o u l d b e m o d i f i e d t o (I) e l i m i n a t e t h e r e g u l a t i n g r e s e r v o i r a n d p r o v i d e d i r e c t d e l i v e r i e s t o t h e C i t y o f X i n o t , o r ( 2 ) d e s i g n t h e r e s e r v o i r s o t h a t no releases t o t h e S o u r i s R i v e r are n e c e s s a r y o r r e q u i r e d . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s wou ld be necessa ry t o de t e rmine whe the r t hese mod i f i ca t ions t o t h e Lake Audubon p lan wou ld be poss ib l e and wha t add i t iona l c o s t , i f a n y , t h e r e w o u l d b e o v e r t h e a u t h o r i z e d p l a n .

4. S o u r i s River F i s h Barrier. According to the Biology Commit tee , i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t u p s t r e a m m i g r a t i o n o f c a r p o n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r , a b a r r i e r w h i c h w o u l d r e s u l t i n f l o w v e l o c i t i e s i n e x c e s s o f 25 f e e t / s e c o n d f o r a d i s t a n c e o f 35 f e e t would be necessary. A t t h e p r e s e n t time, t h e r e are no f a c i l i t i e s on t he Sour i s River which would p revent migra t ion o f carp upstream from Manitoba in to Nor th Dakota and Saska tchewan. Therefore , such ac t iv i ty c o u l d t h e o r e t i c a l l y t a k e p l a c e now d u r i n g h i g h water y e a r s . The add i t ion of GDU r e t u r n f l o w s may i n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f such an occu r rence .

A f l o o d c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e p r o p o s e d b y t h e U . S . Army Corps of Engineers to be located on t h e S o u r i s River near B u r l i n g t o n , North Dakota , would control f lood f l o w s o f t h e Des Lacs and S o u r i s Rivers. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h i s f a c i l i t y as a b a r r i e r t o u p s t r e a m m i g r a t i o n o f f i s h i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r i s unknown.

The Eng inee r ing Commi t t ee cons ide red t he poss ib i l i t y o f mod i fy ing t he ex i s t ing Lake Dar l ing Dam on t he Sour i s River t o e n s u r e t h a t n e i t h e r t h e s p i l l w a y n o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n c o n d u i t would a l low ups t ream passage o f carp. However, i t was found t h a t d u r i n g f l o o d f l o w s , t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e r e s e r v o i r l eve l and t he water l e v e l i n t h e r iver downstream would not r e s u l t i n v o l o c i t i e s g r e a t e r t h a n 25 f e e t p e r s e c o n d f o r 35 f e e t . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e r e g u l a t i o n c o n d u i t as a c a r p b a r r i e r w a s not examined. I t should be po in ted ou t however ,

4 9

t h a t d u r i n g d r y p e r i o d s t h e water level i n t h e r e s e r v o i r i s only about 20 f e e t a b o v e t h e d o w n s t r e a m r i v e r l e v e l s , i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y v e l o c i t y t o p r e v e n t t h e u p s t r e a m movement o f ca rp .

The topography o f t he Sour i s River upstream from the Manitoba- North Dakota Boundary i s s u c h t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a s t r u c t u r e m e e t i n g t h e p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d c a r p b a r r i e r c r i t e r i a w o u l d be ex t remely expens ive . No d e t a i l e d E n g i n e e r i n g s t u d i e s were undertaken by the Engineer ing Commit tee .

5. Kindschi Lake. A s n o t e d a b o v e , t h e r e e x i s t s a sc reened 20 c f s t u r n o u t o n t h e McClusky Canal t o p r o v i d e water t o t h e proposed Kindschi F ish and Wi ld l i fe Development Area . The tu rnout i s l o c a t e d u p s t r e a m o f t h e McClusky C a n a l f i s h s c r e e n a n d t h u s p r o v i d e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a ' d i r e c t s u r f a c e water connec t ion t o t h e Hudson Bay Drainage.

T h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o p r e v e n t f i s h m i g r a t i o n v ia t h i s r o u t e are: i m p r o v i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e f i s h s c r e e n , p r o v i d i n g a s a n d f i l t e r , o r e l i m i n a t i n g t h e t u r n o u t .

6 . James River -- Oakes Area. A s d i s c u s s e d ea r l i e r , o p e r a t i o n of t h e GDU i n t h e E a s t O a k e s I r r i g a t i o n Area would a l low the t r a n s f e r o f b i o t a f r o m t h e James River, through the Oakes Pumping P lan t , and i n to wa te r s wh ich even tua l ly r each Canada v i a t he p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n a l w a s t e w a y s . A s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o e l i m i n a t i n g t h e w a s t e w a y s i n t h e East Oakes Area, o r c o n s t r u c t i n g a McClusky C a n a l - t y p e f i s h s c r e e n i n t h e O a k e s C a n a l , two concepts were reviewed which could funct ion as b a r r i e r s t o t h e p a s s a g e o f b i o t a i n t h i s area.

i ) James R i v e r F i s h B a r r i e r s : The p o s s i b i l i t y of r a i s i n g and en la rg ing t he ex i s t ing Dako ta Lake D a m on t h e James River , n e a r t h e North Dakota-South Dakota boundary, w a s investigated t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h i s s t r u c t u r e c o u l d ac t as a n e f f e c t i v e b a r r i e r t o t h e movement of f i s h u p s t r e a m o n t h e James River a n d t h u s i n t o t h e East Oakes Area. Detai led examinat ion of topographic maps and a f i e l d c h e c k o f t h e area c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t it wou ld be imposs ib l e t o ra i se a n d e n l a r g e t h i s s t r u c t u r e t o make i t a n e f f e c t i v e f i s h b a r r i e r d u e t o t h e f l a t t o p o g r a p h y o f t he area. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e are n o o t h e r s u i t a b l e si tes o n t h e James River between the Dakota Lake D a m and the Oakes Pumping Plan t where such a s t r u c t u r e c o u l d b e l o c a t e d .

i i ) Canal from Jamestown Reservoir to Oakes Area: The B io logy Commi t t ee has r epor t ed t ha t t he ex i s t ing J ames town Dam o n t h e James R i v e r s e r v e s as a n e f f e c t i v e b a r r i e r t o t h e u p s t r e a m movement o f f i s h . T h u s , i f GDU p r o j e c t w a t e r f o r t h e East Oakes

50

Area were supp l i ed d i r ec t ly f rom James town Rese rvo i r v i a a new s u p p l y c a n a l , i t wou ld be imposs ib l e fo r f i sh i n t he l ower J ames River P l a n t t o m i g r a t e u p s t r e a m a n d b e t r a n s f e r r e d t h r o u g h t h e East Oakes Area and thus in to Canadian waters. The a u t h o r i z e d GDU P l a n u s e s t h e James R i v e r f o r d e l i v e r i e s o f i r r i g a t i o n f l o w s up t o 450 c f s . Thus , a supp ly cana l o f t he same capac i ty f rom Jamestown Reservoir would be required. The canal would extend more t h a n 90 miles a l o n g t h e James River va l ley bo t tom, and the e s t ima ted cons t ruc t ion cos t s wou ld be be tween $50,000,000. and $75,000,000. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c a n a l would d i s r u p t f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n s , r e q u i r e r e l o c a t i o n o f p e o p l e a n d f a r m s t e a d s , a n d r e s u l t i n a loss o f w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t .

7 . Devi ls Lake -- Rock Lake . This connec t ion couid be e l imina ted by removal of a c u l v e r t a n d m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o a n e x i s t i n g f i l l . Cos ts were e s t i m a t e d t o b e $20,000.

B. Water Q u a l i t y

The Engineer ing Commit tee under took four inves t iga t ions d e a l i n g w i t h t h e e f f e c t s o f GDU on water q u a l i t y i n Canada.

1. E f f e c t o f GDU Return Flows on Sediment Transport: Requests were rece ived f rom Water Qual i ty , Uses, and Biology Committees c o n c e r n i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f GDU r e tu rn f l ows on s ed imen t t r anspor t . A Sedimentation Task Force was e s t a b l i s h e d t o p r o v i d e t e c h n i c a l assist- a n c e i n r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e s e r e q u e s t s .

A m a j o r p a r t o f t h e s t u d y was to de t e rmine t he s ed imen t l o a d s a n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a t f i v e "benchmark" s t a t i o n s : (1) S o u r i s River near Westhope, ( 2 ) Red River a t Emerson , ( 3 ) A s s i n i b o i n e River above Po r t age , ( 4 ) Por tage Divers ion a t Oakland, and (5) Red River a t Lockport .

The recorded suspended sediment sampling data were used t o d e f i n e s e d i m e n t r a t i n g c u r v e s f o r e a c h o f t h e s t a t i o n s e x c e p t P o r t a g e D i v e r s i o n a t Oakland. The sediment ra t ing curves (Attach- ment E-3) were deve loped by p lo t t i ng wa te r d i scha rge ve r sus s ed imen t l o a d . U t i l i z i n g t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p combined wi th h i s tor ic f low-dura t ion da ta p rov ided by the Quant i ty Commit tee , suspended sediment load and concen t r a t ion were computed f o r q u a r t e r l y a n d a n n u a l p e r i o d s f o r a n a v e r a g e y e a r , a w e t yea r , and a d r y y e a r . The average year i s t h e mean f o r t h e p e r i o d of f l ow r eco rd as d e f i n e d by t h e Q u a n t i t y Committee. The w e t and d ry yea r s were s e l e c t e d as t y p i c a l f o r t h e p e r i o d of record and do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h e two extremes.

S u f f i c i e n t d a t a t o d e v e l o p a sed imen t r a t ing cu rve on a m o n t h l y b a s i s f o r t h e O a k l a n d S t a t i o n were n o t a v a i l a b l e . T h e r e f o r e , fo r comput ing t he s ed imen t l oad t o t he D ive r s ion and hence t o Lake Manitoba, i t was as sumed t ha t s ed imen t concen t r a t ions i n t h e d i v e r t e d

51

water are t h e same as i n t h e A s s i n i b o i n e River above the Divers ion . The Po r t age D ive r s ion ope ra t ing c r i t e r i a provided by t h e Q u a n t i t y Committee assume that a l l f l o w s i n t h e A s s i n i b o i n e R i v e r i n e x c e s s of 8,000 c f s would be d iver ted up t o t h e D i v e r s i o n c a p a c i t y of 25,000 c f s . Us ing t hese r e l a t ionsh ips combined w i th Po r t age D ive r s ion f l ow- dura t ion da ta p rovided by the Quant i ty Commit tee , suspended sed iment l oad and concen t r a t ion were computed f o r t h e same peri-ods as t h e o t h e r s t a t i o n s .

T h e a b o v e d i s c u s s i o n p e r t a i n s t o h i s t o r i c c o n d i t i o n s o n l y . To compute the increase in suspended sed iment load due to GDU r e t u r n f l o w s , i t was assumed t h a t t h e s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s f o r t h e GDU r e tu rn f l ows wou ld b e t h e same as f o r h i s t o r i c f l o w s . T h i s assump- t i o n i s based on p re l iminary computa t ions us ing f low-dura t ion da ta f o r h i s t o r i c f l o w s i n c r e a s e d by GDU r e tu rn S lows a long w i th t he s ed imen t r a t i n g c u r v e s , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n v e r y l i t t l e change in sed iment concent ra - t i o n f r o m h i s t o r i c c o n d i t i o n s .

The i n c r e a s e d s e d i m e n t l o a d f o r e a c h of t h e "benchmark" s t a t i o n s was then computed (Attachment E-3) u s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e h i s t o r i c c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d t h e i n c r e a s e d f l o w d u e t o GDU. The annual v a l u e s f o r a n a v e r a g e y e a r f o r t h e " b e n c h m a r k " s t a t i o n s are as shown i n T a b l e E - 4 .

Table E-4: Average Annual Suspended Sediment Loads and Concent ra t ions for "Benchmark" S t a t i o n s

"Benchmark'' S t a t i o n

Suspended Average Annual Suspended Sediment Sediment Load (1000 t o n s ) Concent ra t ion

H i s t o r i c w/GDU mg/l

Sour i s River , near Westhope 6 .5 10.1 28

Ass in ibo ine R ive r , above Po r t age 6 6 4 . 2 692.9 329

P o r t a g e D i v e r s i o n , a t Oakland 92.6 94.6 515

Red River a t Emerson 680.1 687.1 212

Red River a t Lockport 1,997.4 2,016.6 242

The Engineer ing Commit tee addressed concerns deal ing with channel e ros ion , s t r eambed d i s tu rbance , s ed imen t l oad and s ed imen t depos i t i on . Although a small amount of bank erosion w i l l o c c u r i n the open d ra ins

52

a n d r i v e r t r i b u t a r i e s u s e d t o c o n v e y i r r i g a t i o n r e t u r n f l o w s t o t h e main r iver sys tems, i t i s b e l i e v e d t h e r e w i l l b e no apprec iab le bed l o a d movement o v e r t h a t w h i c h a l r e a d y t a k e s p l a c e d u r i n g extreme f l o o d f l o w c o n d i t i o n s . E v a l u a t i o n of USBR i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a n d d e s i g n s f o r o p e n d r a i n s a n d c h a n n e l m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f n a t u r a l w a t e r c o u r s e s i n d i c a t e t h e s e are d e s i g n e d w i t h i n t h e c r i t e r i a f o r s t a b l e c h a n n e l s . It i s b e l i e v e d t h a t no a d d i t i o n a l stream bo t tom d i s tu rbance ove r tha t p resent ly occur ing can be expec ted on the Red , Sheyenne , Wi ld Rice o r S o u r i s R i v e r s .

The ave rage annua l i nc rease i n s ed imen t l oad i s 3,600 t o n s and 7,000 t o n s a t Westhope and Emerson , respec t ive ly . This addi t iona l sediment from GDU i s t h e r e s u l t o f b a n k e r o s i o n b e t w e e n t h e r e t u r n f l o w c o n t r i b u t i n g p o i n t s a n d t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l b o r d e r . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n of a ne t depos i t i on o f s ed imen t be tween t he bo rde r and Lake Winnipeg a t p r e s e n t a n d t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e GDU r e t u r n f l o w s w i l l no t change t h i s . However , i n any one yea r t empora ry l oca l i zed s e t t l i n g - o u t may o c c u r b u t i t wou ld be sub jec t t o " f lu sh ing ou t ' ' by h i g h e r f l o w s . T h i s p r o c e s s w i l l c o n t i n u e i n similar manner with GDU .

2. Reduction of S a l i n e S o i l s i n t h e S o u r i s A r e a : The concept of improv ing t he qua l i t y o f GDU r e tu rn f l ows f rom the Sour i s area by s e l e c t i n g i r r i g a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t b l o c k s c o n t a i n i n g t h e l ea s t amount of s a l i n e s o i l s was i n v e s t i g a t e d .

The au tho r i zed GDU p l a n p r o v i d e s f o r i r r i g a t i n g 116,000 a c r e s of t he nea r ly 191 ,000 acres o f d e s i g n a t e d a r a b l e s o i l s i n t h e t h r e e S o u r i s R i v e r Area i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s - Karlsruhe 12,200 acres, Middle Souris 64,200 acres and Mouse River 39,600 acres. For planning p u r p o s e s , t h e USBR d i v i d e d t h e two l a t t e r d i s t r i c t s i n t o n i n e b l o c k s : Blocks 1, 2 and 3 compr i se t he Midd le Sour i s D i s t r i c t , w i t h t h e r e m a i n d e r b e i n g i n t h e biouse River District. See F i g u r e E-4.

To p r o v i d e d a t a f o r i t s "De ta i l ed Re tu rn F low Sa l in i ty and Nut r ien t S imula t ion Model" , the USBR s e l e c t e d 9 2 5 o f t h e o v e r 5 , 0 0 0 s o i l b o r i n g s t a k e n i n t h e area. These da ta were processed to r educe t he compute r i npu t t o s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o i l p r o f i l e s , a n d c o r r e s p o n s i n g a c r e a g e s , a t 1 6 master si tes. The Water Q u a l i t y C o m m i t t e e , i n e x a m i n i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t o r y e f f e c t of s a l i n e s o i l s o n r e t u r n f l o w q u a l i t y , t e s t e d f o r s e n s i t i v i t y by i n c r e a s i n g a n d d e c r e a s i n g t h e a c r e a g e s r e l a t e d t o master s i tes r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m o r e h i g h l y s a l i n e a r e a s . T h e s e c h a n g e s r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s a n d d e c r e a s e s i n a n n u a l a v e r a g e TDS c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e S o u r i s Area r e t u r n f l o w s . The Engineering Committee was t h e r e f o r e r e q u e s t e d t o e x a m i n e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f r e d u c i n g t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f s a l i n e s o i l s t o b e i r r i g a t e d .

A t a s k f o r c e o f s o i l s c i e n t i s t s w a s assembled . Af te r rev iewing the computer model l ing da ta used i n t h e USBR i r r i g a t i o n r e t u r n flow model, a mod i f i ca t ion u s ing more s p e c i f i c s o i l d a t a , and a t es t of

53

t h e e f f e c t o f s h i f t i n g t h e s e l e c t i o n o f acres b e t w e e n i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s , t h i s g r o u p c o n c l u d e d t h a t s h i f t i n g a c r e s t o a v o i d s a l i n e s o i l s was p o s s i b l e . They a l s o s p e c u l a t e d t h a t some o f t h e s a l i n e s o i l s r e l a t e d t o master s i t e R 3 a n d l o c a t e d i n B l o c k 7 may b e s u b j e c t t o a r t e s i a n g r o u n d water p r e s s u r e . I f s o , t h e e f f e c t c o u l d b e a c o n t i n u a l r e p l e n i s h m e n t o f t h e s a l t c o n t e n t o f t h e s e s o i l s so t h a t , u n d e r i r r i g a t i o n , t h e y would n o t l e a c h o u t t o a n e q u i l i b r i u m s t a t e as i n o t h e r a r e a s .

Table E-5 g i v e s t h e a c r e a g e a s s i g n m e n t s , by master s i tes , i n t h e o r i g i n a l r e t u r n f l o w m o d e l l i n g p l a n . I t a l s o shows t h e c o r - r e s p o n d i n g v a l u e s o f e l e c t r i c a l c o n d u c t i v i t y (EC) f o r e a c h master s i t e , t h e a v e r a g e EC f o r e a c h d i s t r i c t , a n d t h e o v e r a l l a v e r a g e f o r t h e S o u r i s Area, 1 . 6 7 mi l l i .mhos per cen t imeter . Since t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s o i l EC va lues and TDS c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e r e t u r n f l o w , e l e c t r o c o n d u c t i v i t y was t h e p a r a m e t e r u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y f o r m e a s u r i n g t h e e f f e c t s of p l a n m o d i f i c a t i o n s .

The o r i g i n a l p l a n assumed t h a t a p ropor t ion o f a l l acres a s s i g n e d t o e a c h master s i t e wou ld be i r r i ga t ed and t ha t t hey wou ld b e d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e S o u r i s Area. The Engineering Committee, however, f e l t t h a t t h e USBR i r r i g a t i o n p l a n w o u l d i n c l u d e t h o s e d e v e l o p - ment b locks cons idered feas ib le f rom both an engineer ing and economic v iewpoin t . Accord ingly , the Commit tee reques ted the USBR to deve lop a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n s , b a s e d o n a s e l e c t i o n o f b l o c k s c o n t a i n i n g t h e least amount of Class "A" (EC g r e a t e r t h a n 4.0 mmhos/cm) and o the r s a l i n e s o i l s , t h a t would reduce the average EC from 1 . 6 7 to abou t 1 . 2 0 mmhos/cm. Two such p l ans were presented, reviewed and accepted by the Commi t t ee , and t hen pas sed t o t he lJater Quant i ty and Qual i ty Commi t t ees fo r p red ic t ion mode l l ing .

I n P l a n I , which would include areas i n Blocks 1, 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 p l u s t h e K a r l s r u h e area, t h e t o t a l a c r e a g e s t o b e i r r i g a t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e d i s t r i c t s would remain una l te red . House River i r r i g a t e d l a n d w o u l d all b e i n B l o c k s 4 and 5 , a v o i d i n g t h e l a r g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s a l i n e s o i l s i n B l o c k s 7 and 9 . Acreage assignments by master si tes f o r t h i s p l a n are shown i n T a b l e E-6. The o v e r a l l average EC va lue would be 1 .23 mhos /cm.

I n P l a n 11, t h e Mouse R i v e r i r r i g a t e d a r e a w o u l d b e i n c r e a s e d by 25,200 acres t o 64,800 acres , and the Middle Sour i s would be cor res - pond ing ly r educed t o 39 ,000 ac re s , a l l i n Block 1. Development i n t h e Mouse River District would b e i n Blocks 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 b u t w i t h a v o i d a n c e o f h i g h l y s a l i n e s o i l s i n B i o c k 7 . T h i s p l a n s h i f t s about 8 p e r c e n t of t h e i r r i g a t e d s o i l s f r o m Class 1 and Class A t o Class 2 and Class 3 , and reduces the average EC t o 1 . 1 9 mmhos/cm. Acreage assignments by master s i tes f o r t h i s p l a n a r e shown i n T a b l e E-7.

The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a c r e a g e by USBR l a n d c l a s s e s , f o r t h e original and two a l t e r n a t e p l a n s i s shown i n T a b l e E-8.

5 4

FIGU

RE

E-4

i I

55

Table E-5: Authorized Plan - Acreage Assignments by Master Sites in Each of the Irrigation Districts.

Irrigation District Master Site Acreage - EC EC x Ac.

Middle Souris S34 - MSll Ave. EC = 2.38 S3 - MSAl

R3 - MRAl S23 - MS22 + MS23 R8 - MR3V3 S10 - MS33 S40 - MS3VQ3 R4 - MR3VC3

14,745 1.30 1,284 5.40 5,284 18.10 25,487 0.79 8,346 0.60 1,284 1.49 7,126 0.50 642 0.50

64,200

19,168.5 6,933.6

95,640.4 20,134.7 5,007.6 1,913.2 3,563.0 321.0

152,682.0

Mouse River R6 - MRll Ave. EC = 0.93 E04 - MR3NA2

S3 - MSAl R3 - MRAl R7 - MR22 + MR23 S40 - MS3VQ3 R8 - MR3V3 R4 - MR3VC3

3,577 1,600 100 89

14,199 6,397 10,650 2,989

1.00 2.70 5.40 18.10 1.10 0.50 0.60 0.50

3,577.0 4,320.0 540.0

1,610.9 15,618.9 3,198.5 6,390.0 1,494.5

39,600 36,749.8

Karlsruhe K2 - K23B15 4,875 0.40 1,950.0 Ave. EC = 0.52 K1 - K33B15 3,936 0.60 2,361.6

K1 - K33B35 3,389 0.60 2,033.4

12,200 6,345.0

Souris Area Ave. EC = 1.67

116,000 195,776.8

57

Table E-6: Alternate Plan I - Acreage Assignments by Master Sites in each of the Irrigation Districts (Development Blocks I, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Irrigation District Master Site Acreage - EC EC x Ac.

Middle Souris S34 - MSll Ave. EC = 1.49 S3 - MSAl

R3 - MEW1 S23 - MS22 + MS23 R8 - MR3V3 S10 - MR33 S40 - MS3VQ3 R4 - MR3VC3

16,855 1.30 3,000 5.40 1,460 18.10 25,487 0.79 8,346 0.60 1,284 1.49 7,126 0.50 64 2 0.50

64,200

21,911.5 16,200.0 26,426.0 20,134.7 5,007.6 1,913.2 3,563.0 321.0

95,477.0

Mouse River R6 - MRll Ave. EC = 1.04 E04 - MR3NA2

S3 - MSAl R3 - MRAl R7 - MR22 + MR23 S40 - MS3VQ3 R8 - MR3V3 R4 - MR3VC3

3,381 1.00 1,600 2.70 " 5.40 384 18.10

14,199 1.10 6,397 0.50 10,650 0.60 2,989 0.50

39,600

3,381.0 4,320.0

6,950.4 15,618.9 3,198.5 6,390.0 1,494.5

"

41,353.3

Karlsruhe K2 - K23B15 4,875 0.40 1,950.0 Ave. EC = 0.52 K1 - K33B15 3,936 0.60 2,361.6

K1 - K33B35 3,389 0.60 2,033.4

12,200 6,345.0

Souris Area Ave. EC = 1.23

116,000 143,175.3

58

Table ~ - 7 ; A l t e r n a t e P l a n I1 - Acreage Assignments by Master Si tes i n each of t h e I r r i g a t i o n Districts (Development Blocks 1, 4 , 5 , 6 , P a r t of 7 and 8) .

I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t Master S i t e Acreage __ EC EC x Ac. ~ _ _

Middle Sour i s S34 - MSll Ave. EC = 1.67 S3 - MSAl

S23 - MS22 + MS23 R 8 - MR3V3 S10 - MS33 S40 - MS3VQ3 R4 - MR3VC3 R 3 - MRAl

5,700

18,900 7,480 1 ,280 3,100

640 1 , 9 0 0

”

1.30 5.40 0.79 0.60 1 .49 0.50 0.50

18.10

7,410.0

14,931.0 4,488.0 1,907.2 1 ,550 .0

320.0 34,390.0

”

39,000 64,996.2

Mouse River R6 - M R l l Ave. EC = 1 . 0 3 E04 - MR3NA2

S3 - MSAl R7 - MR22 + MR23 S40 - MS3VQ3 R 8 - MR3V3 R4 - MR3VC3 R3 - MRAl

7,160 1 ,600

850 23,210

7,100 19,380

5,100 400

1.00 2.70 5.40 1.10 0.50 0.60 0.50

18.10

7,160.0 4,320.0 4,590.0

25,531.0 3,550.0

11,628.0 2,550.0 7,240.0

64,800 66,569.0

Kar l s ruhe K2 - K23B15 4,875 0.40 1,950.0 Ave. EC = 0.52 K 1 - K33B15 3,936 0.60 2,361.6

K 1 - K33B35 3,389 0.60 2,033.4

12,200 6 ,345.0

S o u r i s Area Ave. EC = 1 . 1 9

116,000 137,910.2

59

Table E-8: Comparison of A l t e r n a t e P l a n s I and I1 w i t h O r i g i n a l P l a n i n Regard to Acreage Ass ignmen t s by I r r iga t ion Class.

O r i g i n a l P l a n EC = 1 . 6 7

Class 1

1 8 , 3 4 3 1 6 %

A l t e r n a t e P l a n I 2 0 , 2 3 6 EC = 1 . 2 3 1 7 %

A l t e r n a t e P l a n 11 1 2 , 8 6 0 EC = 1.19 11%

Class 2 Class 3 Class "A" ____-

4 4 , 5 6 1 4 4 , 7 5 8 8 , 3 3 7 38% 39% 7 %

4 4 , 5 6 1 4 4 , 7 5 8 6 , 4 4 4 38% 39% 6%

47 ,010 5 1 , 3 8 0 4 , 7 5 0 41% 44% 4 %

The Water Qua l i ty Commi t t ee found t ha t t he e f f ec t of e i t h e r p l a n o n t h e water q u a l i t y of the Sour i s River near Westhope was simllar. Both plans reduced monthly TDS, s u l f a t e s a n d h a r d n e s s v a l u e s b y up t o 18 percent . The grea tes t reduct ions would occur dur ing the months when t h e r e w o u l d b e t h e h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f t h e s e c o n s t i t u e n t s . A more de t a i l ed accoun t of t h e e f f e c t o f r e d u c i n g s a l i n e s o i l s o n t h e r e t u r n f l o w t o t h e S o u r i s R i v e r c a n b e f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x A , Water Q u a l i t y .

P l a n n i n g i n t h e S o u r i s Area has not advanced t o a s t a g e w h e r e s p e c i f i c areas have been se lec ted for deve lopment o r t h e d e t a i l e d d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m d e s i g n e d . T h i s f i n a l p l a n n i n g w i l l be based on b lock deve lopment tha t depends on engineer ing and economic feas ib i l i ty . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , e i t h e r a l t e r n a t e p l a n , o r a n y similar one , cou ld be adop ted w i th minimum c o s t a n d d i s r u p t i o n .

3 . L in ing o f Velva Canal

a . Purpose: The purpose o f t h i s a l t e r a t i o n i s t o reduce t h e amount of seepage f rom the Velva Canal and hence improve the q u a l i t y o € r e t u r n f l o w t h a t r e a c h e s t h e S o u r i s R i v e r .

b . D e s c r i p t i o n : The Velva Canal i s abou t 84 miles i n l e n g t h a n d c r o s s e s two i n t e r m i t t e n t l a n d f o r m s ; g l a c i a l t i l l and outwash. It var ies i n c a p a c i t y f r o m 2,000 c f s t o 1 6 0 c f s . About 24 miles of t h e C a n a l are through ou twash and under the p resent ly p roposed p l a n a re c o n s i d e r e d t o b e e a r t h l i n e d t o r e d u c e s e e p a g e l o s s e s . The remainder of the Canal , 60 miles, i s t h r o u g h t h e g l a c i a l till and is u n l i n e d u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t p l a n .

6 0

\

S t u d i e s by t h e Water Qual i ty and Water Quantity Committees r e v e a l e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of t h e TDS l o a d i n g i n t h e r e t u r n f l o w o c c u r i n g t o t h e S o u r i s River resu l ted f rom seepage f rom the Ve lva Cana l t h rough t he g l ac i a l t i l l s e c t i o n s .

The b e s t estimate of c a n a l s e e p a g e a c c r u i n g t o t h e S o u r i s River i s 17,400 a c r e - f e e t p e r y e a r . The seepage f rom the Velva Canal t h r o u g h t h e g l a c i a l till r e p r e s e n t s a b o u t 37 p e r c e n t of t h e t o t a l s eepage w i th a TDS c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f 3 ,600 mg/l , compared to 1 ,800 m g / l f o r t h e 1 7 , 4 0 0 acre- fee t o f seepage water.

Seepage through membrane (such as p o l y v i n y l c h l o r i d e o r b u t y l r u b b e r s h e e t ) l i n e d c a n a l s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than t he s eepage t h r o u g h g l a c i a l t i l l o r e a r t h l i n e d c a n a l . Two p l a n s were developed t o reduce seepage by membrane l i n i n g . P l a n I c o n s i d e r s membrane l i n i n g a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e V e l v a C a n a l i n c l u d i n g s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r t h e e a r t h l i n e d s e c t i o n s . P l a n I1 c o n s i d e r s membrane l i n i n g f o r t h e g l a c i a l till s e c t i o n s o n l y , r e t a i n i n g e a r t h l i n i n g f o r t h e o u t w a s h s e c t i o n s .

It i s p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e membrane l i n i n g b e p l a c e d o v e r the we t t ed po r t ion o f t he Cana l and cove red w i th f rom n ine t o t h i r t een i n c h e s of e a r t h on t o p of which would be p laced f ive to e ight inches o f g r a v e l .

E i t h e r p l a n t o l i n e t h e V e l v a C a n a l w i t h membrane w i l l c ause a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n t h e t o t a l s e e p a g e f r o m t h e c a n a l , i n a d d i t i o n t o r e d u c i n g t h e s e e p a g e t h a t a c c r u e s t o t h e r e t u r n f l o w s i n t o t h e S o u r i s X i v e r . T h i s w i l l r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n of t h e r e q u i r e d water d ive r t ed f rom the Missour i R ive r .

c . Cos t Estimate: S t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n of membrane l i n i n g on t he l a rge r s ec t ions o f t he Ve lva Cana l i s more e x p e n s i v e t h e n u s i n g e a r t h l i n i n g . The r e v e r s e i s t r u e f o r t h e smaller Canal sections. A s a r e s u l t , a t o t a l l y l i n e d c a n a l w i t h e i t h e r e a r t h o r membrane would have a similar c o s t . The c o s t p e r mile of l i n i n g the Velva Canal would range from $ 8 0 , 0 0 0 f o r t h e smallest c r o s s - s e c t i o n to app rox ima te ly $300,000 f o r t h e l a r g e s t c r o s s - s e c t i o n .

The t o t a l c o s t o f P l a n I1 f o r membrane l i n i n g 60 miles of t h e V e l v a C a n a l t h r o u g h t h e g l a c i a l till has been e s t ima ted t o be $14,000,000. The t o t a l c o s t of P l a n I f o r a membrane l i n i n g f o r t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h of t he Cana l is e s t i m a t e d t o b e $20,000,000. How- e v e r , t h e p r o v i s i o n o f membrane l i n i n g f o r t h e e n t i r e C a n a l would r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t c o s t estimate s i n c e t h e e a r t h l i n i n g o v e r t h e g l a c i a l o u t w a s h as present ly p roposed would no t be r e q u i r e d . The e s t i m a t e d c o s t f o r t h i s e a r t h l i n i n g is p r e s e n t l y $ 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . , h e n c e , t h e n e t c o s t of p rov id ing membrane l i n i n g f o r t h e e n t i r e 84 miles of Canal i s $14,000,000. A s a r e s u l t , t h e n e t c o s t of e i t h e r p l a n i s t h e same. The c o s t estimates are based on

6 1

t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e membrane l i n i n g a t t h e time the Velva Canal i s c o n s t r u c t e d . A d d i t i o n a l m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t w i l l be encountered as a r e s u l t o f t h e c a n a l l i n i n g . No estimate was made f o r t h i s item.

4 . Di lu t ion o f Sour i s R ive r by Ve lva Cana l Wate r : I r r iga t ion r e t u r n f l o w s f r o m t h e S o u r i s Area w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of TDS i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r . Two of the poss ib le methods which have b e e n s u g g e s t e d f o r e l i m i n a t i n g t h i s e f f e c t i n v o l v e t h e u s e of Velva Canal water which , for mos t of t h e y e a r , w i l l have lower TDS v a l u e s . The f i r s t method would be to exchange a l l o r p a r t of t h e r i v e r f l o w w i t h a n e q u a l f l o w d i v e r t e d f r o m t h e c a n a l . U n d e r t h i s c o n c e p t , the exchange would be made a t t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e c a n a l c r o s s e s t h e r i v e r t h r o u g h a n i n v e r t e d s y p h o n s t r u c t u r e . M o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t r u c t u r e w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d s o t h a t , when n e c e s s a r y , water could b e d i v e r t e d i n t o t h e l o w e r r e a c h of t h e c a n a l f r o m t h e S o u r i s R i v e r ups t ream of the s t ruc ture and rep laced , downst ream of i t , by an equal f l ow d ive r t ed ou t o f t he uppe r r each o f t he cana l . However , examina t ion of t h i s p r o p o s a l showed t h e r e w o u l d b e v i r t u a l l y n o n e t e f f e c t on t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e S o u r i s River f lowing in to Canada . It would simply r o u t e more TDS t h r o u g h t h e i r r i g a t e d l a n d , i . e . , a case of i r r i g a t i n g w i t h " d i r t i e r ' ' water.

The second method showed more promise: The addition of Velva Canal water t o t h e S o u r i s R i v e r so as t o d i l u t e i t s TDS concentra- t i on . Th i s d ive r s ion f rom the cana l wou ld a l so be accompl i shed i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e s y p h o n s t r u c t u r e .

I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e was based on Souris River (Westhope benchmark s ta t ion) median or best estimate data and on the computed "most l i k e l y " v a l u e f o r TDS i n the Velva Canal (440 m g / l ) . C a l c u l a t i o n s were made f o r b o t h p e a k i m p a c t a n d e q u i l i b r i u m c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s : w i t h GDU as planned and as modif ied by Plans I and I1 i n v o l v i n g t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of s e l e c t e d h i g h l y s a l i n e l a n d s ( s e e S u b - s e c t i o n 2 above) .

The r e q u i r e d d i v e r s i o n s o u t of t h e c a n a l t o d i l u t e t h e TDS c o n c e n t r a t i o n t o p r e - p r o j e c t v a l u e s , u n d e r e a c h o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s , are t a b u l a t e d i n A t t a c h e m e n t E - 4 . Such d i l u t i o n would be ; ( i ) unnecessary in the months o f January and February be- c a u s e , w i t h GDU, c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f TDS w i l l b e less t h a n p r e - p r o j e c t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ; ( i i ) i m p o s s i b l e i n A p r i l a n d May because p re -p ro jec t TDS levels are less t h a n 440 mg/l; and ( i i i ) i m p r a c t i c a l i n A u g u s t because t he r equ i r ed d ive r s ions wou ld exceed t he maximum c a p a c i t y o f t he cana l . I n mos t o f t he r ema in ing mon ths , d ive r s ions o f f l ow f rom the cana l wou ld be cons ide rab ly g rea t e r t han t he Sour i s R ive r f low. Much o f t he capac i ty o f t he cana l wou ld be ded ica t ed t o t hese d i v e r s i o n s , t h u s r e d u c i n g i t s a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m i t s p r imary func t ion of c a r r y i n g water i n t o t h e i r r i g a t i o n area. The re fo re , a l t hough some d i l u t i o n c o u l d t h e o r e t i c a l l y b e a c c o m p l i s h e d b y t h i s m e t h o d , f o r a b o u t h a l f o f t h e y e a r i t would n o t b e a p r a c t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n .

62

A paramount consideration, however, is that the dilution concept conflicts with that of eliminating inter-basin transfers of fish via direct surface water connections. If GDU is modified to provide for the collection and re-use of waste flows (see Section A of this Chapter), a diversion turnout and sand filtration facility would be necessary. This would cost in the order of $200,000,000. Accordingly, no further study of the concept was undertaken, such as the possibility of partial dilution with smaller diversion flows.

C. Water Supplies A-

The Engineering Committee was requested to provide information as to the additional cost and type o f treatment necessary as a result of GDU return flows to provide a water of equivalent quality to that which Canadian municipal and industrial users presently have. The methodology used was based on determining the increase in chemical costs at existing plants, plus the added cost of further treatment by reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis is not selective in ion removal and by treating to bring the controlling constituent (such as sulphate or nitrate) to pre-GDU level, many of the other constituents are reduced to well below their existing values with a resultant water product which, for most constituents, is of better quality than at present. In addition, the Committee was requested to determine the cost of developing alternative water supplies for some communities for comparative purposes.

There are other alternate measures which may or may not be less costly but would warrant further investigation if time permitted. For example, off-stream storage could be provided at each site for diversion of river flows, during times o f the year when the water quality is at its best, for use during months when the river water is of poor quality. Alternatively, storage could be provided in conjunction with reverse osmosis treatment for blending. Cation- anion exchange may be substituted for reverse osmosis.

1. Water Treatment Costs:

a. Municipal and Industrial Users: There are six municipal and one industrial Canadian users drawing water from the Souris, Assiniboine and Xed Rivers. Information on existing plant facilities and water treatment costs for 1975 were obtained from each o f the users. Using this information and data provided by the Water Quality Committee, water treatment costs f o r reducing the poorest predicted water quality to pre-GDU levels were.calculated.

Existing plants are capable of reducing the hardness and producing a water microbiologically safe and free of color, turbidity, taste and odor. They were not designed to remove total dissolved solids, sodium, sulphate, and nitrate + nitrite nitrogen. Further conditioning by reverse osmosis is required to reduce the concentration of these constituents.

6 3

c I-

I

t c

om

mo

0

3

..

..

-f N

r- .f .

.

c,

x) 4

64

.

.. "I-.

3

-: > 2 c

-1

r i

? 3

3

3

1

i

u

J

2U

-i

65

Therefore, increased treatment costs are comprised of two components (1) additional chemical costs, and (2) further treatment by reverse osmosis. A summary of the water treatment costs for municipal and industrial users, for peak impact and equilibrium periods, is provided in Tables E-9 and E-10, respectively. Capital cost calculations shown in these Tables were in response to a request from the Uses Committee and reflect the cost to treat the water at times when the maximum problem situation would occur, without regard for the duration of time this situation may exist in the river.

These incremental chemical cost estimates do not include operation and maintenance considerations such as electrical, heat, financing, amortization, and labour. Current operating costs for these items were not readily available and comparative operation and maintenance costs would therefore be of little value. The total capital costs for reverse osmosis plants includes an estimated cost of installation, housing facilities, land, and accessory equipment, as well as financing and amortization.

In summary, an increase in water treatment costs will occur with GDU and the true cost for each community can only be determined by a thorough engineering study. The costs reported herein are simply to bring attention to this expected increase and its magnitude.

In any demineralization application, consideration must be given to the disposal of effluent. This may be a significant problem and could in some instances make demineralization impracticable. Methods of disposal include deep well injection, evaporation by ponding, storage with disposal to the river during periods of high flow, or direct discharge into the sewage system. Any one of these methods may in some locations be impossible, impractical or very expensive.

b. Rural Domestic Users: There are four rural domestic users drawing water from the Assiniboine River. These are relatively small users compared to the municipal and industrial users and consequently the method for developing treatment costs was not as detailed. It was assumed that reverse osmosis units would be placed following the existing treatment facilities to handle 100 percent of the daily water requirement. This would result in a reduction of all water quality constituents to pre-GDU levels or below.

A summary of costs for providing these treatment facilities is given in Table E-11.

6 6

Table E-11: Water Trea tmen t Cos t s fo r Rura l Domes t i c Users

User Popu la t ion

I b e r v i l l e H u t t e r i t e Colony 150

B a r r i c k m a n I i u t t e r i t e Colony 150

Water C a p i t a l 0 & M Annual Requirements Cost Costs /yr . Cost

gpd $ $ $

6 ,300 9,500 4 , 6 0 0 5,700

6,300 9,500 4,600 5,700

Whi tehor se P l a ins Trailer Pa rk 308

16,940 25,400 10,600 14,400 J e l l y s t o n e P a r k 400 (Summer

on ly )

2 . A l t e r n a t e Water Supp l i e s

a . Rural Domest ic Users: Ground water s o u r c e s were inves- t i g a t e d as p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t e water s u p p l i e s f o r t h e f o u r r u r a l d o m e s t i c u s e r s a l o n g t h e A s s i n i b o i n e R i v e r . A v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t ha t g round water s o u r c e s may e x i s t b u t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e b e s t s o u r c e f o r e a c h u s e r w o u l d r e q u i r e f u r t h e r s t u d i e s , i n c l u d i n g test d r i l l i n g and a q u i f e r t e s t i n g . However, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h e g r o u n d water sou rces could be developed a t a c o s t less t h a n t h e t r e a t m e n t c o s t s i d e n t i f i e d above.

b . Town o f Sour i s : An e x t e n s i v e a q u i f e r e x i s t s a p p r o x i - m a t e l y e i g h t miles northwest of the town. A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e a q u i f e r a n d t h e S o u r i s R i v e r as shown i n T a b l e E-12 i n d i c a t e s t h e two s u p p l i e s a re similar w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of a s l i g h t h y d r o g e n s u l p h i d e o d o u r b e i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e a q u i f e r s u p p l y . T h u s , t h e p r e s e n t water t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s a t S o u r i s w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f a e r a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , a re a d e q u a t e t o t rea t t h i s s u p p l y t o t h e e x i s t i n g q u a l i t y . C o s t s were de te rmined fo r well development and pumps, an e i g h t mile p i p e l i n e , a n d n e c e s s a r y a e r a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . The t o t a l c a p i t a l c o s t would be about $1,500,000. w i t h a n a n n u a l c o s t f o r i n - terest and amor t i za t ion o f $200,000. The operat ion and maintenance c o s t s wou ld be ve ry nea r ly t he same as f o r t h e e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t y ,

67

~~ -~~~ ~~ .~~~~ . ~~~ ~

Tab le E-12: Water Qual i ty o f Sour i s River and Proposed Aqui fer

Parameter

T o t a l H a r d n e s s ( a s C a C O )

T o t a l A l k a l i n i t y ( a s CaCO )

Calcium

3

3

Magnesium

Sodium

Su lpha te

Hydrogen Sulphide

Sour is River (mg/ 1 )

34 7

3 6 1

65

4 5

1 3 2

218

380

360

98

33

29

6 2

S l i g h t Odor

c . C i t y of Po r t age l a Prair ie : Three water supp ly sou rces were i n v e s t i g a t e d as a n a l t e r n a t e s u p p l y f o r t h e C i t y o f Po r t age l a P r a i r i e . The t h r e e s o u r c e s are Lake Manitoba, a l i m e s t o n e a q u i f e r about 20 t o 30 miles n o r t h e a s t o f t h e c i t y , a n d a sand and gravel a q u i f e r a b o u t 40 miles west o f t h e C i t y . The water q u a l i t i e s of t he p re sen t sou rce (Ass in ibo ine R ive r ) and t hese t h ree sou rces i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e E-13 . The t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s a n d a n d g r a v e l a q u i f e r will prov ide water o f a q u a l i t y s u c h t h a t e x i s t i n g t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s w i l l t reat t h i s s u p p l y t o t h e e x i s t i n g q u a l i t y . However, Lake Mani toba and the l imes tone aqui fe r w i l l r e q u i r e a n a d d i t i o n a l t r ea tmen t s t e p i n t h e form of reverse osmosis.

C a p i t a l c o s t s were deve loped fo r t he works necessa ry t o c o n n e c t t h e a l t e r n a t e s o u r c e t o t h e e x i s t i n g c i t y water t r ea tmen t sys tem. Where t h e e x i s t i n g t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m w o u l d b e i n a d e q u a t e t o treat t h e water t o p r e s e n t q u a l i t y , c a p i t a l a n d o p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r a d d i t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t were a l s o d e t e r m i n e d . I n a d d i t i o n , w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e , i n c r e a s e d c h e m i c a l c o s t s f o r t r e a t i n g t h e s e a l t e r n a t e s u p p l i e s were inc luded . A summary o f t h e c o s t of t h e a l t e r n a t e water s u p p l i e s i s i n c l u d e d i n T a b l e E-14.

68

Tab le E-1 3 : Water Quality Comparison o f Present and Alternate Water Supplies

Portage la Prairie

Parameter

Total Hardness - as CaCO (mg/l) 3

Total Alkalinity - as CaCO (mg/I) 3

PH

Calcium Hardness - as CaCO (mg/l) 3

Nagnesium Hardness - as CaCO (mg/l) 3

Magnesium Hardness - as CaCO (mg/l) 3

Non-Carbonate iiarness - as CaCO (mg/l) 3

Total Residue (mg/l)

Non-filterable residue ( d l )

Iron as Fe (mg/l)

Manganese as Mn (mg/l)

Chloride as C1 (mg/l)

Sulphate as SO (mg/l)

Sodium as Na (mg/l)

4

Present Supply

356

312

205

154

37

44

528

25

1 7 2

56

Lake Manitoba

507

312

8.0 - 8 .7

1 5 0

388

9 3

1 9 5

1 , 6 0 0

40

0 . 8 2

0 .05

540

230

350

Limestone Aquifer

505

4 7 3

275

384

92

32

.61

338

4 10

Sand & Gravel Aquifer

365

292

236

1 3 0 . 6

3 1 . 3

7 3 .O

.18

5

34

69

Table E-14: Cost Summary for Alternate Water Supplies Portage la Prairie

Lake Manitoba 6,200 1,360 2,230

Limestone Aquifer 6,000 1,350 2,180

Sand and Gravel Aquifer 6,100 120 980

D. Water Quantity

Additional flows will accrue to the Souris and Red Rivers as a result of the development of the Garrison Diversion Unit. These flows will be minimal on the Red River but adverse impacts were identified on the Souris River. Consequently, the Engineering Committee was requested to investigate means to mitigate or alleviate the resultant flooding due to increased flows, and to investigate the effects of these flows on the frequency of overflows into Delta Marsh and on erosion at identified archaeological sites.

1. Flood Damage Reduction on the Souris River: The purpose of this alteration is to reduce or eliminate the incremental average annual flood damage that would result along the Souris River in Manitoba from the increased flows from GDU. The objective of the alternative is to provide additional channel capacity in the Souris River from the Manitoba-North Dakota boundary northward for about 80 river miles, to the vicinity of Hartney, Manitoba. The criterion used to determine the incremental channel capacity that should be provided along various sections of this reach of the Souris River was that the present bankfull discharge, plus the maximum monthly return flow from GDU, would be carried in the channel at the same water level as that of the existing bankfull discharge. This criterion provides for additional channel capacity equal to the maximum mean monthly return flow from GDU, at existing bankfull discharges and higher. Hence, the effect on f l o o d stages of the return flow f rom GDU would be eliminated for all discharges from the existing bankfull discharge and higher.

a. Capacity: The bankfull capacity in this reach of the Souris River ranges from approximately 150 cfs at the International

70

Boundary t o a b o u t 1 ,700 c f s a t H a r t n e y . The c h a n n e l c a p a c i t i e s were e s t i m a t e d f r o m h y d r a u l i c c a l c u l a t i o n s u s i n g t o p o g r a p h i c d a t a a l o n g w i t h water su r face e l eva t ions and f l ow measu remen t s ob ta ined du r ing t h e s p r i n g f l o o d s o f 1 9 7 4 , 1975 and 1976.

Informat ion provided by the Water Quant i ty Commit tee ind ica ted t h a t t h e maximum i n c r e a s e i n mean month ly d i scharge as a r e s u l t o f GDU i n t h i s r e a c h o f t h e R i v e r w o u l d b e 178 c f s . The c a l c u l a t i o n s t h e r e f o r e , were d i r e c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount of e x c a v a t i o n r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l f l o w o f 178 c f s a t b a n k f u l l c a p a c i t y t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e r e a c h o f t h e r i v e r f r o m W e s t h o p e t o H a r t n e y .

I n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e water s u r f a c e p r o f i l e a t Hartney wi th the increased f low f rom GDU would be similar t o t h a t w h i c h now e x i s t s a t bankfu l l , channe l en l a rgemen t was also provided downstream o f H a r t n e y f o r s e v e r a l miles.

b . Exten t of Channel Enlargement: The amount of excavation r equ i r ed t o p rov ide t he add i t iona l channe l capac i ty t o accommoda te t h e i n c r e a s e d f l o w was b a s e d o n s i d e s l o p e s o f 5 : l w i t h t h e d e p t h o f excava t ion ex tend ing f rom the p re sen t bank downward i n t o t h e c h a n n e l t o some p o i n t a b o v e t h e u s u a l summer low water leve l . I n t h e c a s e o f t h e s i x mile s e c t i o n o f t h e S o u r i s R i v e r f r o m t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary t o C o u l t e r , t h e e x c a v a t i o n w o u l d h a v e t o e x t e n d i n t o t h e channel bot tom and hence, some of the excava ted ma te r i a l wou ld have t o b e removed i n a w e t c o n d i t i o n . Where p o s s i b l e t h e e x c a v a t i o n was loca ted on one s ide of t h e c h a n n e l , A t y p i c a l c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f t he Sour i s R ive r i n t he r each unde r ques t ion , a long w i th t he p roposed e x c a v a t i o n t o meet t h e c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d a b o v e , i s shown on F i g u r e E-5.

The r e a c h o f t h e S o u r i s River u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a t t h e p r e s e n t time serves as a n e s t i n g a n d s t a g i n g area fo r wa te r fowl as wel l as w i n t e r i n g a r e a s f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t w h i t e - t a i l e d d e e r p o p u l a t i o n . The p ro jec t impac t wou ld be t o des t roy much o f t he na tu ra l bank vege ta - t i o n a l o n g t h e S o u r i s River be tween the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary and H a r t n e y , a n d h e n c e d i s t u r b w i l d l i f e . A s i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y t h i s would be minimized as f a r as p o s s i b l e by excava t ing on ly one s ide o f t he channe l . Ano the r adve r se e f f ec t o f t he channe l i za t ion wou ld b e t h a t t h e h a b i t a t o f a q u a t i c f u r b e a r e r s a l o n g t h e S o u r i s R i v e r f rom Hartney to the boundary would be d i s t u r b e d d u r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d . A t e m p o r a r y i n c r e a s e i n s e d i m e n t l o a d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d would a l s o r e s u l t a n d w o u l d c o n t i n u e u n t i l v e g e t a t i o n became e s t a b l i s h e d a l o n g t h e b a n k s .

The spo i l banks wou ld be s eeded and shaped du r ing cons t ruc t ion and would be d i scont inuous to p e r m i t l o c a l d r a i n a g e .

c . Cos ts for Channel Enlargement : The t o t a l c o s t o f t h e c h a n n e l e n l a r g e m e n t s c h e m e i n c l u d i n g l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t s i s

7 1

approximately $5,800,000. This includes the cost of the land required for right-of-way for the excavation and spoil banks. It is estimated that 2,000 acres of land (200 acres cultivated and 1,800 acres of pasture) would be required. Quantity Committee estimates of a 50 percent frequency occurence indicate that 1,850 acres of land would be inundated by flood waters with 660 acres of this total caused by the addition of return flows from the GDU. The average annual costs of interest, depreciation, operation and maintenance, are estimated to be about $680,000.

2. Frequency of Overflow from Portage Diversion to Delta Marsh: The Biology Committee requested the Engineering Committee to examine the increase in the occurrence of overflow from the Portage Diversion to the Delta Marsh that would result from GDU. The Portage Diversion has a design capacity of 25,000 cfs throughout most of its length. However, where the Diversion traverses the Delta Marsh, the capacity is reduced to 15,000 cfs. Hence, when the flow in the Diversion exceeds 15,000 cfs, overflow into the Delta Marsh takes place. For purposes of this study the Water Quantity Committee adopted the following operational criteria for the Portage Diversion: flows up to 8,000 cfs in the Assiniboine River are allowed to pass downstream unchanged; and when the flow exceeds 8,000 cfs in the Assiniboine River, flows in excess of 8,000 cfs are diverted in the Diversion, up to 25,000 cfs, the capacity of the Diversion. It is apparent, therefore, that when the flow in the Assiniboine River upstream from Portage la Prairie exceeds 23,000 cfs (8,000 cfs + 15,000 cfs), overflow into the Delta Xarsh will take place.

8ased on data provided by the quantity Committee, the Engineer- ing Committee determined the expected frequency of occurrence of the annual peak of the mean daily discharges under existing conditions, and under conditions with best estimate return flows from GDU under equilibrium conditions. It was found that the annual frequency of occurrence of 23,000 cfs or greater is 8.5L percent under existing conditions and will be 8.81 percent under post-GDU conditions. These figures indicate that the increased annual chance of occurrence of overflow into the Delta Marsh resulting from GDU is 0.3 percent. Statistically this is negligible.

3, Effect of GDU Return Flows on Wistorical and Archaeological Resources: The Uses Committee requested the Engineering Committee to provide information on the efiect of potential e-rosion on historical and archaeological resources along the Souris, Assiniboine and Red Rivers as a result of GDU return f lows . The Manitoba Water Resources Branch performed a study for the Engineering Committee's use in responding to this request.

The effect of increased flows on river channel erosion was estimated by considering the channel width (W) and depth (d) to be functions of the mean annual flood flow (9 ) . The change in

72

1333 NI NO

llVA

313

>

W

z

t- [L

I

Q z

a

a

W a

0

i- I

cn

W

z

$ t- W

m

W

>

_I

_I

3 CK w

[L

L '" [L 3

cn 0

z- 0 t- o

W

cn cn cn 0

[L

0

-I a

9 a t. I-

FIGU

RE

E-5

2 2 18 N d 0

0

c\I N

0

0

N

0

0 0

a,

0

0

u, 0

0

d

0

0

'vc- W

W

v

oz

8: a

g2

co

n -

wz

I-

0

0

d

0

0

N

0

0

3

N

0

3

d-

3

3 9

1333 NI N

OllV

A313

73

channe l w id th and dep th r e su l t i ng f rom a change i n mean annua l f l ood f low due t o GDU r e t u r n f l o w s was t h e n e s t i m a t e d u s i n g t h e w i d e l y o b s e r v e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s :

W v a r i e s as Q o o 5 and

d varies as Q . 0.4

T i m e rates of channel ad jus tments were e s t i m a t e d b y r e f e r e n c e t o o b s e r v a t i o n s o n similar rivers in Man i toba .

The r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y are provided below:

a . S o u r i s R i v e r : A r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h i n t h e S o u r i s River B a s i n h a s , t o d a t e , b e e n m i n i m a l . I n t h e l a t e 1800's and ea r ly 1 9 0 0 ' s t h e r e were s p o r a d i c a c t i v i t i e s t h a t c o n c e n t r a t e d p r i m a r i l y o n b u r i a l mound e x c a v a t i o n s . No f i e l d r e s e a r c h was conducted from 1915 to 1970 . A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h i s decade Le igh Syms of Brandon U n i v e r s i t y c a r r i e d o u t a r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m i n t h e area where t he An t l e r River and the Gainsborough Creek en ter the Sour i s River . This i s t h e o n l y a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s u r v e y of any rea l scope t ha t has been done a l o n g t h e S o u r i s , so i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t i t i s i n t h e area o f t h i s s u r v e y t h a t t h e vast m a j o r i t y o f known s i tes a r e l o c a t e d . There are s e v e r a l s i tes l o c a t e d c l o s e t o t h e r i v e r w h i c h are be ing a f f e c t e d by e ros ion ( see At tachement E-5) .

It i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t w h i l e t h e r e are several known s i tes t h r e a t e n e d by e r o s i o n (among them the Brock in ton S i t e , which was d e c l a r e d t o b e o f n a t i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e b y t h e N a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c S i tes and Monuments Board i n 1 9 7 3 ) , i t i s t h e l o s s o f , o r damage t o , un- d i scovered s i tes t h a t i s a concern among many a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . They c o n s i d e r t h e S o u r i s River Basin a r i c h area f o r a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and are conv inced t ha t known si tes r e p r e s e n t o n l y a f r a c t i o n of t h o s e t o be found a long t he r iver .

On t h e b a s i s of o b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e A s s i n i b o i n e R i v e r , i t may be assumed that the meandering of t h e S o u r i s R i v e r i n some a r e a s c a u s e s b a n k r e c e s s i o n s o f o n e t o two f e e t p e r y e a r . The rates v a r y f r o m o n e p o i n t t o a n o t h e r a l o n g t h e r i v e r a n d a l s o f r o m o n e y e a r t o t h e n e x t . The Q u a n t i t y C o m m i t t e e i d e n t i f i e d i n c r e a s e s o f 1 1 9 and 80 c f s t o t h e h i s t o r i c mean annual f lood f lows of 1 , 5 4 3 and 2 ,670 c f s a t Westhope and Wawanesa, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e s e a d d i t i o n a l f l o o d f lows d u e t o GDU would accelerate a widening of the r iver channel ( c u r r e n t l y a b o u t 200 f ee t w ide ) and subsequen t ly e s t ab l i sh a channel a b o u t t h r e e f e e t w i d e r t h a n u n d e r e x i s t i n g n a t u r a l e r o s i o n p r o c e s s e s . A l s o , t he meander w id th wou ld be a f f ec t ed t o some degree . The ne t r e s u l t o f t h e s e movements would be the l o s s o f a s t r i p o f l a n d several f e e t w i d e , g e n e r a l l y o n t h e c o n v e x s i d e o f r iver bends.

b . Ass in iboine and Red Rivers: GDU re turn f lows would i n c r e a s e t h e mean annua l f l ood f l ow o f 1 1 , 2 4 9 c f s o n t h e A s s i n i b o i n e

75

a b o v e t h e P o r t a g e D i v e r s i o n b y 6 3 c f s . On t h e Red R i v e r , t h e mean annua l f l ood f l ow o f 23 ,118 c f s a t Emerson would be i nc reased by 37 c f s , a n d a t Lockpor t the mean annual f lood f low of 56 ,909 c fs would be increased by 69 c f s . T h e s e GDU r e t u r n f l o w q u a n t i t i e s are much less s i g n i f i c a n t t h a n o n t h e S o u r i s , a n d t h e e f f e c t s of i n c r e a s e d e r o s i o n o n t h e A s s i n i b o i n e a n d Red Rivers are t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t e d t o b e mfnor and masked by t h e e f f e c t s o f c u r r e n t e r o s i o n p r o c e s s e s .

E . Summary of USBR R e p o r t o n " A l t e r n a t i v e I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , S o u r i s Area"

T h i s r e p o r t , p r e p a r e d b y t h e M i s s o u r i - S o u r i s P r o j e c t s O f f i c e o f t h e U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, was made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e E n g i n e e r i n g Committee. The r e p o r t d i s c u s s e s f o u r t y p e s o f a l t e r n a t i v e s ( a n d a t o t a l of twelve p l a n s ) :

(1) D o m e s t i c ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l U.S.A.) u s e o f r e t u r n f l o w s ( 2 ) D i l u t i o n o f t h e S o u r i s R i v e r ( 3 ) P a r t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t he Sour i s Area ( 4 ) Treatment of (a) r e t u r n f l o w s

(b) two water s u p p l i e s i n C a n a d a .

The r e p o r t n o t e d t h a t , "Each a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n was examined i n s u f f i c i e n t d e p t h t o d e t e r m i n e p r a c t i c a b i l i t y o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , a p p r o x i m a t e c o s t s , e f f e c t s o n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r , a n d p r o b a b l e s o c i a l and env i ronmen ta l e f f ec t s i n Nor th Dako ta . " In add i t ion , i t was s t a t e d , " T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e s t u d y c o u l d b e u s e d as a p lanning gu ide f o r more d e t a i l e d f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s . "

The sec t ions be low are a pa raphras ing o f t h i s r epor t and n o t a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It i s impor t an t t o remember t h a t t h e r e p o r t d i s c u s s e d o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e s i n t h e S o u r i s Area, a n d t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s sugges ted are n o t t h o s e recommended by the Engineer ing Commit tee .

ALTERNATIVE A - Domestic Use

Genera l : The t o t a l vo lume o f r e tu rn f l ows f rom the GDU i s abou t 91 ,600 ac re - f ee t annua l ly w i th abou t 4 7 , 4 0 0 a c r e - f e e t b e i n g co l l ec t ab le . Thus abou t 4 4 , 2 0 0 ac re - f ee t lyea r wou ld en te r t he Sour i s w i t h a n a v e r a g e TDS (computed) concent ra t ion o f 7 0 0 mg/l, most of which w i l l b e d u r i n g t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e would p r e c l u d e y e a r - r o u n d s u r v i v a l o f f i s h i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r d o w n s t r e a m o f t h e S o u r i s Area ( a s now e x i s t s ) .

P lan A-1: I n t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e , r e t u r n f l o w s f r o m t h e s u b s u r - f a c e d r a i n s a re c o l l e c t e d w i t h a p o r t i o n b e i n g u s e d f o r i r r i g a t i o n i n t h e S o u r i s A r e a w i t h t h e r e m a i n d e r b e i n g c o l l e c t e d i n a man-made 150 a c r e - f o o t r e s e r v o i r a n d pumped t o t h e L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r .

76

A l t e r n a t i v e A-1 - Return Flows a n d E f f e c t s o n S o u r i s R i v e r

Item I r r i g a t i o n S e a s o n Non-Irr igat ion Season Quan t . Qual. Quant . Qual.

Acre-feet m g / l Acre- fee t mg/l

Return Flows 39,300 680 4 ,900 880

E x i s t i n g Flow 67 , 400 510 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 3 0

E x i s t i n g Flow w i t h GDU 134 ,600 670 44,200 800

E x i s t i n g Flow w i t h A-1 1 0 6 , 7 0 0 580 2 4 , 900 660

The c o l l e c t e d a n n u a l r e t u r n f l o w s t o L o n e t r e e R e s e r v o i r would average 2 1 , 3 0 0 a c r e - f e e t a t 1 ,210 mg/l TDS (computed). The a d d i t i o n a l c o s t of t h i s p l a n would be $ 9 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 .

Plan A-2: T h i s p l a n i s i d e n t i c a l t o A-1 e x c e p t t h a t t h e e x c e s s r e t u r n f l o w s are r e t u r n e d t o Lake Sakakawea. A l l e f f e c t s on the Sour i s River would be i d e n t i c a l t o A - 1 . The a d d i t i o n a l c o s t o f t h i s p l a n would b e $110,600,000.

P l a n A-3: T h i s p l a n i s i d e n t i c a l t o A-1 e x c e p t t h a t t h e e x c e s s r e t u r n f l o w s a r e d i v e r t e d t o t h e D e v i l s L a k e C h a i n . A l l e f f e c t s o n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r w o u l d b e i d e n t i c a l t o A-1. The a d d i t i o n a l c o s t of th i s p lan would be $125,400,000.

P l a n A-4: I n t h i s p l a n , t h e s u b s u r f a c e d r a i n s would be connected by a c losed p ipe sys tem and the f lows f rom the d ra ins would be conveyed d i r ec t ly t o Lone t r ee Rese rvo i r . No p o r t i o n o f t h e r e t u r n f low would be reused i n t h e S o u r i s A r e a . The e f f e c t s o n t h e S o u r i s River are i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e o u t l i n e d i n A-1. The a d d i t i o n a l c o s t of t h i s p l a n would be $101,700,000.

P lan A-5: T h i s p l a n is i d e n t i c a l t o p l a n A-4 w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n t h a t t h e r e t u r n f l o w s are d i rec ted to Lake Sakakawea . The a d d i t i o n a l c o s t o f t h i s p l a n w o u l d b e $ 1 2 4 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 .

P lan A-6: T h i s p l a n i s i d e n t i c a l t o p l a n A-4 w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n t h a t t h e r e t u r n f l o w s are d i r e c t e d t o t h e Devils Lake Chain. The a d d i t i o n a l c o s t o f t h i s p l a n would be $132,700,000.

Discuss ion: The i r r i g a t i o n r e t u r n f l o w s c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e s u b s u r f a c e d r a i n s are o f g o o d q u a l i t y a n d s u i t a b l e f o r f u r t h e r r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t . I n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e i t may n o t o n l y b e e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e t o c o l l e c t a n d u s e t h e i r r i g a t i o n r e t u r n f lows i n North Dakota, b u t s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e .

7 7

P l a n s A-2 and A-5 a p p e a r t o b e t h e least v i a . b l e , p l a n s A-1 and A-4 the mos t economica l , and p lans A-3 and A-6 the most expensive b u t o f f e r i n g t h e m o s t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r d e v e l o p m e n t a l o n g t h e p i p e l i n e r o u t e s .

ALTERNATIVE B - D i l u t i o n

G e n e r a l : T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s i s t s of p r o v i d i n g a t u r n o u t a t t h e Velva Canal - S o u r i s R i v e r s i p h o n c r o s s i n g a n d r e l e a s i n g Velva Canal water i n t o t h e S o u r i s R i v e r . The d i l u t i o n water cou ld be r egu la t ed t o m a i c t a i n S o u r i s River q u a n t i t y o r q u a l i t y o r b o t h . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s i d e r e d r e g u l a t i n g d i l u t i o n water t o m a i n t a i n a g i v e n q u a l i t y .

D e s c r i p t i o n : U n d e r t h e a u t h o r i z e d p l a n t h e s t r u c t u r e w o u l d serve as a wasteway and would also serve to dewa te r t he Ve lva Cana l . To r e g u l a t e TDS levels i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r b e l o w 1,000 m g / l , t h e Velva Canal would have to be opera ted year - round.

The va lue o f 1 ,000 mg/l was s e l e c t e d a s t h i s c o m p a r e s w i t h a c c e p t a b l e water q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e S o u r i s R i v e r i n North Dakota. To d i l u t e t o l o w e r TDS v a l u e s w o u l d r e q u i r e l a r g e volumes of water and may compound f looding and e ros ion problems.

The d i l u t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e are based on a 2 1 - y e a r h y d r o l o g i c c y c l e w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f GDU r e t u r n f l o w s over a 63-year per iod.

To limit t h e maximum TDS i n t h e S o u r i s a t 1 ,000 mg/l , Velva Canal water a t a n a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f 440 mg/l would be re leased i n t o t h e River a t a maximum of 7 ,200 a c r e - f e e t / y e a r . D i l u t i o n water would gene ra l ly on ly be r equ i r ed i n J anua ry and Februa ry . Med ian re leased would be about 1 ,600 a c r e - f e e t l y e a r . No d i l u t i o n w o u l d be requi red for months wi th above normal f lows . A s d i l u t i o n i s r e q u i r e d o n l y i n l o w f l o w p e r i o d s i t w i l l n o t a f f e c t f l o o d i n g .

Environmental Effects : Cont inuous water movement would change the l imnology of re fuge waters. Changes i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n composition of zooplankton and phytoplankton would occur which could b e d e t r i m e n t a l . Of bene f i t wou ld be enhancemen t o f t he r i ve r ine e n v i r o n m e n t a n d i n c r e a s e i n f i s h d u e t o f r e s h e n i n g o f t h e r i v e r .

A change i n t he t empera tu re r eg ime w i l l l i k e l y p r o v i d e open water i n w i n t e r m o n t h s g i v i n g a h i g h e r p o t e n t i a l f o r w a t e r f o w l popu la t ions du r ing w in te r mon ths and wa te r fowl d i seases . Open water wou ld p rov ide fo r oxygena t ion . In summer, t h e water tempera ture w o u l d b e l o w e r e d w i t h d e c r e a s i n g p o t e n t i a l f o r a l g a l b l o o m s . I n c r e a s e d D . O . would lower the B . O . D . , s t a b i l i z e o r g a n i c matter and provide a genera l improvement in water q u a l i t y .

78

Year-round survival of fish would also allow the establishment of rough fish in the upper sections of the Souris. A control structure may be required to inhibit carp from migrating upstream.

Offensive odors, poor colour and taste problems could be alleviated and also adequate water supplies could be assured along the Souris.

No additional construction costs are associated with this plan.

ALTERNATIVE C - Partial DeveloDment General: This alternative consists of three plans with

varying levels of development of the Souris Area.

Plan C-1: This plan involves reducing the development in the Souris Area from 116,000 acres to 90,800 acres o r 22 percent. This would result in a reduction in fish and wildlife areas, and M 6 I water facilities would be eliminated for two communities. Water released into the Velva Canal would be reduced from 222,000 to 183,000 acre-feet annually and return flows from 91,600 to 76,300 acre-feetlyear.

This plan would reduce the project cost by $9,300,000.

Alternative C - 1 - Return Flows and Effects on Souris River

Item Irrigation Season Non-Irrigation Season Quant . Qual. Quan t . Qual.

Acre-feet mg/l Acre-feet mg/l

Return Flows 56,200 790 20,100 1,010

Existing Flows in Souris River 67,400 510 -20,000 630

Existing Flows with GDU 134,600 670 44,200 800

Existing Flows with C - 1 123,600 650 40,100 780

Plan C-2: This plan is similar to C-1 except that the development would be reduced to 51,200 acres. Annual water released into the Velva Canal would be reduced to 120,000 acre-feet. Return flows would be reduced to 54,600 acre-feet.

This plan would reduce the project cost by $72,900,000.

79

A l t e r n a t i v e C-2 - Return Flows a n d E f f e c t s o n S o u r i s R i v e r

Item I r r i g a t i o n S e a s o n Non-Irr igat ion Season Quant . Qual. Quan t . Qual.

Acre-feet mg/l Acre-feet mg/ 1

Return Flows 4 1 , 5 0 0 7 5 0 12,100 990

E x i s t i n g F l o w s i n Sour is River 6 7 , 4 0 0 510 20,000 6 30

Exis t ing F lows wi th GDU 1 3 4 , 6 0 0 6 7 0 4 4 , 2 0 0 800

Exis t ing F lows w i th C-2 108,900 6 2 0 31,100 7 1 0

P l a n C-3: T h i s p l a n w o u l d d e l e t e t h e S o u r i s S e c t i o n f r o m t h e GDU and thus e l imina te re turn f lows f rom the Sour i s . This p lan would r e d u c e t h e c o s t o f t h e p r o j e c t by $ 1 4 8 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 .

The Ci ty of Minot would be severe ly a f fec ted as i t i s depending o n t h e GDU f o r a good q u a l i t y w a t e r s u p p l y . A s a r e s u l t Lake Audubon would poss ib ly be deve loped in to a water supp ly fo r Mino t .

Discuss ion: The S o u r i s Area c o u l d b e r e d u c e d i n s i z e o r e l imina ted and a f a v o u r a b l e BC r a t i o b e r e t a i n e d f o r t h e GDU. Return f lows would be reduced or e l imina ted . It i s n o t e d t h a t r e d u c t i o n s i n t h e S o u r i s Area would r e s u l t i n r e d u c e d b e n e f i c i a l i m p a c t s on Canada.

ALTERNATIVE D - Treatment

G e n e r a l : T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i n c l u d e s two methods of reducing some o f t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e r e t u r n flows. One p l a n i n v o l v e s d e s a l t i n g r e t u r n f l o w s a t Deep River be . fore they en ter t he Sour i s , and t he o the r p rov ides r e imbursemen t t o Sour i s and Po r t age l a Pra i r ie f o r a d d i t i o n a l water t r e a t m e n t c o s t s i n c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of GDU r e t u r n f l o w s .

P l a n D-1: T h i s p l a n c o n s i s t s of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a d i v e r s i o n dam a t t h e mouth of t h e Deep River a n d d e s a l t i n g a p o r t i o n o f t h e f low. Most i r r i g a t i o n r e t u r n f l o w s w i l l e n t e r t h e S o u r i s v ia t h e Deep R i v e r .

A p o r t i o n o f t h e Deep River f low would be d iver ted th rough t h e d e s a l t i n g p l a n t a n d r e l e a s e d t o t h e S o u r i s a t 400 mg/l TDS (computed) t o p r o v i d e a b lended mix ture of 540 mg/l when mixed with the remainder of t he r e tu rn f l ows . Th i s wou ld approx ima te t he h i s to r i c annua l median TDS c o n c e n t r a t i o n .

80

T h i s p l a n w o u l d n o t a p p r e c i a b l y a f f e c t t h e S o u r i s R i v e r f lows but would improve the River qual i ty .

C o n s t r u c t i o n o f a d e s a l t i n g p l a n t a n d a s s o c i a t e d w o r k s wou ld r equ i r e a t o t a l o f a b o u t 4,000 acres and would cost about $90,300,000.

P l a n D - 2 : The GDU w i l l s t a b i l i z e f l o w s i n t h e S o u r i s b u t w i l l i n c r e a s e TDS a n d h a r d n e s s a n d h e n c e o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s o f m u n i c i p a l water t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s . S o u r i s a n d P o r t a g e l a P r a i r i e c u r r e n t l y u s e S o u r i s R i v e r water a n d t h e r e a r e no i n d u s t r i a l u s e r s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s a t b o t h o f t h e s e c o m m u n i t i e s h a v e s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y t o h a n d l e t h e i n c r e a s e d h a r d n e s s f r o m GDU. Hence no new f a c i l i t i e s would be requi red and the p r inc ip le impact would b e i n c r e a s e d c h e m i c a l c o s t s . T h i s c o s t i s e s t i m a t e d t o b e a b o u t $8,00 t o $13,000 a n n u a l l y .

D i s c u s s i o n : D e s a l t i n g o f t h e r e t u r n f l o w s a t Deep River d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o b e v e r y p r a c t i c a l . P r o v i d i n g s u b s i s t e n c e t o S o u r i s and Por tage may s a t i s f y r e q u i r e m e n t s , b u t h a s o b v i o u s s h o r t c o m i n g s a s i t d o e s n o t i n c l u d e f u t u r e u s e r s , n o r d o e s i t r educe su lpha te l e v e l s i n t h e water.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES

G e n e r a l : E x c l u s i o n o f t h e s e i n t h i s s t u d y d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p r e c l u d e t h e m f r o m b e i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d i n a n y f u t u r e s t u d i e s o f a l t e r n a - t i v e s f o r t h e S o u r i s Area. The f o l l o w i n g i s a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h o s e a l t e r n a t i v e s c o n s i d e r e d b u t n o t selected f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

Use o f C o l l e c t a b l e R e t u r n F l o w s f o r I n d u s t r i a l P u r p o s e s I n t h e S o u r i s Area: T h i s p l a n w o u l d i n v o l v e t h e c o l l e c t i o n of r e t u r n f l o w s a n d o f f e r t h e s e f o r sale t o i n d u s t r i e s a n d m u n i c p a l i t i e s i n t h e area. Seve ra l t ypes o f i ndus t r i e s cou ld be deve loped bu t t he mos t p robab le i s o n e t h a t i s c o a l - r e l a t e d .

Exchange of Velva Canal and Souris River Waters: T h i s p l a n w o u l d n e c e s s i t a t e a s t r u c t u r e c a p a b l e of exchanging Velva Canal and Sour i s River waters d u r i n g t h e i r r i g a t i o n s e a s o n . D u r i n g p e r i o d s o f h i g h f l o w i n t h e S o u r i s , e x c e s s w a t e r c o u l d b e d i v e r t e d i n t o t h e Velva Canal reducing f looding downstream. During per iods of low f l o w t h e e n t i r e S o u r i s R i v e r f l o w c o u l d b e d i v e r t e d i n t o t h e C a n a l , and Canal water b e u s e d t o r e p l a c e t h e d i v e r t e d S o u r i s water.

The p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e s t o a c c o m p l i s h t h i s a p p e a r t o b e i t s b igges t d rawback as the Cana l i s 125 f e e t a b o v e t h e River a t t h e c r o s s i n g , n e c e s s i t a t i n g e i t h e r a pumping p l a n t o r l a r g e dam and r e s e r v o i r .

81

N u l t i p u r p o s e Dam and Rese rvo i r on t he Sour i s River: This p l a n c o n s i s t s o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a mul t ipurpose dam o n t h e S o u r i s River upstream of Minot . I t wou ld f r e shen t he Sour i s R ive r du r ing l o w f l o w p e r i o d s a n d r e g u l a t e f l o w s t o p r o v i d e a s t a b l e f l o w p a t t e r n i n t h e r iver . T h i s p l a n a p p e a r s r a t h e r b e n e f i c i a l t o d o w n s t r e a m r e s i d e n t s o f t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n .

Deep Well I n j e c t i o n of Col lectable Return Flows: This p l a n i s l ike ly envi ronmenta l ly unacceptab le and may b e p h y s i c a l l y and economica l ly imprac t ica l .

Extend the Velva Canal to Canada for Canadian Use: This p l a n c o n s i s t s o f l i m i t e d c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f t h e S o u r i s f r o m t h e b o r d e r downstream t o H a r t n e y t o a l lev ia te n a t u r a l a n d a d d i t i o n a l f l o o d i n g d u e t o GDU. Widening, deepening, and removal of old dredge berms in the p rev ious ly-channel ized 6-mi le reach would be requi red as w e l l as bank s t ab i l i za t ion and cons t ruc t ion o f h ighwa te r meander cu t -o f f s and widening and deepening of the lower capac i ty reaches . A channel c a p a c i t y o f 3,000 c f s w i l l hand le mos t o f t he f r equen t ly occu r r ing f lood f l ows .

T h i s p l a n w i l l a l l e v i a t e a l l b u t t h e m o s t s e v e r e f l o o d i n g b u t i t w i l l have t he t endency t o sh i f t t he p rob lem downs t r eam. Th i s p lan would p robably be economica l ly p rohib i t ive and envi ronmenta l ly u n a c c e p t a b l e .

D e s a l i n a t i o n P l a n t s f o r Two Comnunities in Canada: Return f lows w i l l i n c r e a s e s u l p h a t e l e v e l s . The accepted upper l i m i t of 250 m g / l s u l p h a t e i s exceeded 30 p e r c e n t o f t h e time a t Westhope p r e s e n t l y . A f t e r GDU t h i s w i l l be exceeded 60 p e r c e n t o f t h e time. A t S o u r i s , t h e h i s t o r i c a l s u l p h a t e m o n t h l y m e d i a n i s 170 m g / l , a f t e r GDU t h i s w i l l b e 330 mg/l . A t P o r t a g e l a P ra i r i e , t h e h i s t o r i c a l month ly median su lpha te concent ra t ion i s 175 mg/l . After GDU t h i s w i l l be abou t 200 mg/ l , s t i l l be low the accep ted l eve l .

I n s t a l l a t i o n o f a d e s a l i n a t i o n p l a n t a t Sour i s does no t a p p e a r p r a c t i c a l . A l t h o u g h s u l p h a t e l e v e l s are above recommended v a l u e s , t h e y are s t i l l t o l e r a b l e . The a d v e r s e e f f e c t o f s u l p h a t e w i l l b e p a r t i a l l y o f f s e t by improvement i n o t h e r p a r a m e t e r s , p a r t i c u l a r - l y du r ing pe r iods o f l ow f low.

Control Subsurface Drainage During Winter Months: This p l a n c o n s i s t s o f p l u g g i n g t h e d r a i n o u t l e t s d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r s e a s o n (Nov. 1 2 t o A p r i l 1 5 ) . T h i s w o u l d r e d u c e t h e a n n u a l amount of water conveyed ou t o f the Sour i s Area as water w o u l d b e s t o r e d i n t h e s o i l p r o f i l e .

T h i s w o u l d r e q u i r e a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e miles of p i p e d r a i n s and p ipe s izes . Also , the d ra inage sys tem cannot be p lugged by ga t ing

8 2

the outlets alone. A special manhole and gate would be required at each one-foot rise in pipe elevation. The 0 M 6 R costs for this alternative would be 2-112 times that for the presently planned system.

In addition, there are some risks in implementing such a system as the snowmelt and rain must be allowed to percolate downward t o the water table t o allow early sowing. This system may preclude the use of low portions of fields.

83

VI: COMPARISON OF MODIFICATIONS, ALTERATIONS OR ADJUSTMENTS TO GDU PLAN

Included in the work of the Engineering Committee, described in the preceding chapter were studies of various possible modifications, alterations, or adjustments to the authorized GDU plan for the purpose of reducing, eliminating or ameliorating, adverse effects in Canada. A summary of these studies of this examination is shown in Table E-15. It should be pointed out that since the major effects of GDU on Canadian water uses would result from return flows from the Souris Area, the majority of the alterations is directed to this section of the authorized plan.

As indicated in Table E-15, four alterations were found to warrant consideration as measures to modify possible adverse effects of the authorized GDU Plan. Two of these addressed concerns related to the possible transfer of fish, fish eggs and larvae between the Missouri River Basin and the Hudson Bay Basin. The objectives of the remaining two were to improve the quality of the return flow from the GDU.

A summary of the elements of the four alterations follows:

1. Modifications to the McClusky Canal Fish Screen: To increase the effectiveness of the McClusky Canal fish screen as a barrier to the transfer of fish, fish eggs and larvae from the Missouri River Watershed to the Hudson Bay Watershed, a number of possible modifications were identified. As described in Chapter V, these included the addition of a canal control gate immediately upstream from the structure; the provision of a travelling water screen immediately downstream from the trash racks; changing the lower, back-up screen from a series of removable sections to a single sealed screen section; and replacing the proposed auxiliary screening chamber with a collection and pump-back mechanism. In addition, a modelling program, which would duplicate as closely as possible the actual operating conditions of the fish screen structure, is suggested. Such a program would have to be designed so as to not allow a surface water connection between the two watersheds during the testing program.

The estimated cost of this alteration, exclusive of the costs associated with the modelling program and possible structural modifications is $2,000,000.

2. Elimination of Surface Water Connections Between the Missouri River Watershed and the Hudson Bav Watershed: This conceDt is designed to eliminate return flows from the irrigation wasteway

85

I +

t I i I i i i i I i j I

c

I

t i

t

- .i .

I t 1 I

L

86

s

II i

c 1

I

I. u

,

87

system and to prevent any other inter-basin connection of surface waters that would not be passed through the soil profile or sand filters. This would provide a biologically transfer-free system. The concept includes the following elements:

(a) Elimination of the wasteway discharge as a component of GDU return flow by collection and storage of project wasteway flows, with subsequent return of these flows to the irrigation distribution system.

(b) Elimination of the 400 cfs through the Lonetree Dam to prevent spillage of water from the Lonetree Reservoir to the Sheyenne River.

(c) The provision of sand filtration facilities for municipal and industrial diversions at the Lonetree Reservoir into the Sheyenne River and at the Livingston pipeline inlet works on the Velva Canal.

(d) Elimination of the possibility of a surface water connection between Rock Lake in North Dakota and Devils Lake.

Element (a) could be achieved by several alternative designs. For the purpose of this study a design was selected which included the provision of storage basins at each wasteway and pumping facilities to empty the basins back into the distribution canal. Based on design criteria selected for feasibility purposes, the estimated cost of this element is approximately $22,000,000.

In the case of element (b), the Committee determined the cost of providing the same capability with respect to reservoir control in the James River Dyke as would exist at the Lonetree Dam. The cost was estimated to be $25,500,000. It should be noted that the Committee does not recommend that the low level conduit be moved to the James River Dyke, but points out that it is feasible from an engineering standpoint. There are several alternatives available to the agency responsible for design and operation of the Lonetree Reservoir. These alternatives, or their consequences with respect to the overall effectiveness of the Lonetree Reservoir, were not studied by the Engineering Committee.

Eliminating the wasteway component would have an effect on both the quantity and quality of return flows. Since the quality of the wasteway component is reasonably good, its elimination will tend to increase the concentrations of dissolved minerals in the remaining return flows. Implementation should eliminate the possibility of inter-basin transfer of fish, fish eggs and larvae.

The total cost of this alteration is estimated to be $58,500,000.

89

3. Reduct ion of Propor t ion of S a l i n e S o i l s i n S o u r i s Area: Th i s i nvo lves t h e s e l e c t i o n of acres t o b e i r r i g a t e d w i t h i n t h e S o u r i s Area t o r e d u c e t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f s a l i n e s o i l s . Two p lans cons ide red to be feas ib le f rom an engineer ing and implementa t ion s tandpoin t were s t u d i e d . E i t h e r p l a n w o u l d r e s u l t i n l i t t l e i f any mod i f i ca t ions t o t h e d e s i g n of t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n w o r k s .

S i n c e t h e TDS of t h e r e t u r n f l o w i s related t o t h e a r e a - w e i g h t e d e l e c t r o c o n d u c t i v i t y of t h e s o i l , a d e c r e a s e i n EC w i l l resul t i n a n improvement i n t h e q u a l i t y of t h e r e t u r n f l o w . The p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s o i l s w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n f i l t r a t i o n ra tes are n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a n d h e n c e , l i t t l e o r no change i n t h e q u a n t i t y o f r e t u r n f l o w w o u l d r e s u l t .

The cos t o f modi fy ing GDU t o r e d u c e t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f Class A s o i l s i n t h e S o u r i s Area i s cons ide red t o be min ima l .

4 . Lining Velva Canal : In o rder to reduce the component o f r e t u r n f l o w d e r i v e d f r o m Velva Canal seepage, two p l a n s were s t u d i e d : (1) e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e c u r r e n t l y p r o p o s e d e a r t h l i n i n g t h r o u g h t h e ou twash s ec t ions and p rov i s ion o f a membrane l i n i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e c a n a l a n d ( 2 ) p rov i s ion o f a membrane l i n i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e g l a c i a l t i l l s e c t i o n s o n l y .

I t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o s t p e r f o o t of l i n i n g t h e c a n a l w i t h e a r t h o r membrane was abou t t he same. However, t he s eepage f a c t o r f o r membrane l i n i n g i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l ess t h a n f o r e a r t h l i n i n g . C a l c u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e n e t c o s t f o r e i t h e r l i n i n g t h e t i l l s e c t i o n s o r l i n i n g t h e e n t i r e c a n a l was about $14,000,000.

5. Combination: It shou ld be no ted t ha t t he above fou r a l t e r a t i o n s are n o t m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . I f i t were deemed a d v i s a b l e , t h e f o u r c o u l d b e a d o p t e d w i t h o u t r e d u c i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a n y one of them. Iiowever, i n t h e case o f t he sugges t ed mod i f i ca t ions t o t h e f i s h s c r e e n , s h o u l d i t b e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s e w i l l n o t s a t i s f y the requirement of a b i o t i c t r a n s f e r - f r e e d e v i c e , a n d t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f d i r e c t s u r f a c e water c o n n e c t i o n s b e s e l e c t e d , t h e r e seems l i t t l e merit i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m o d e l l i n g p r o g r a m o u t l i n e d .

90

2 i

.”

W.R

6. 96-I-1236A

ATTACHMENT E-1

ENGINEERING COMMITTEE PLAN OF STUDY

E-1-1


ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

PLAN OF STUDY

December 15 , 1975

CHAIRMEN: Mr. F. Hunt, U .S .A . Mr. G.H. MacKay, Canada

I. PURPOSE

The Engineering Committee will supply Garrison Diversion Unit project data to other committees as needed and will prepare alternative plans if needed as indicated from the results of evaluations by the Uses Committee and the Biology Committee. Possible alterations, modifications, or adjustments to the authorized project may for study purposes be located either in

11. ORGANIZATION

A . Membership : following persons:

Mr. F. Hunt Mr. G.H. MacKay Mr. P .L . Balkan Mr. T.J. Dafoe

Mr. G. Balacko

Mr. J. Bathurst

Mr. R. Calton Mr. S. Lanich Mr. D.D. Schulz Mr. H.11. Olson Mr. T.E. Weber

the United States or Canada.

The Engineering Committee is made up of the

- U . S . Bureau of Reclamation - U.S. Chairman - Manitoba Water Resources - Canadian Chairman - Soil Conservation Service - U.S. Secretary - Environmental Protection Service - Canadian - Manitoba, Mines, Resources and Environmental

- Water Planning and Management Branch, Inland

- U.S. Corps of Engineers - Environmental Protection Agency - North Dakota State Water Commission - IJC Study Board Liaison - U.S. Representative - IJC Study Board Liaison - Canadian Representative.

Secretary

Management

Waters Directorate

B. From time to time as needed the Committee shall form Ad Hoc Sub-Committees .

111. PLAN OF ACTION

A . Approach (Philosophy): The Engineering Committee believes that requests for assistance from other committees may come in the form of the need to investigate alternative methods of eliminating, reducing, or accommodating impacts of the Garrison Diversion project on uses in Canada.

B. Matrix: Having recognized the time constraints and also to prepare itself for questions from the other committees regarding alterations, modifications or adjustments to the project, the Engineering Committee has developed the following matrix (see page 2 ) delineating a range of possible engineering solutions. This matrix is not intended to be all inclusive and other alternatives may be identified as needed.

E-1- 4

MATRIX FOR ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO GDU EFFECTS ON CANADA

NOTE: There is no implied priority in listings of alternative

ELIMINATE IMPACTS REDUCE IMPACTS ACCOMMODATE IMPACTS

1) Diversion/Re-use of return flows

1) Regulation of return 1) Channelization flows

2) No irrigation in Red River * 2) Reduce area irrigated 2 ) Use (Irrigation, Municipal/ QUANTITY watershed in Red River watershed Industrial water supply)

3 ) Partial diversion of 3) Protective Measures return flows (Dykes, etc.)

4 ) Irrigation Management 4 ) Non-structural Measures

5) Lining canals restrictions, etc.) (Flood Insurance, land use

m I P

cn I

1) Diversion of return flows 1) Irrigation Management 1) Water treatment of Canada

2) Treatment of return flows 2 ) Staged development

3 ) No irrigation in Red River 3 ) Partial treatment of for Municipalities and

(e.g. Town of Souris)

2 ) Direct alternate water supply

Water shed return flows Industries QUALITY

4 ) Reduction of area irrigated in Red River Watershed

5) Dilution of return flows

6) Lining canals

1) Diversion of all waters back 1) More and better safeguards - from engineering standpoint to Missouri watershed these effects cannot be

BIOLOGY accommodated 2) No irrigation in Red River

Watershed

* Including all its tributaries in the Study Area.

C. Coordination: The Engineering Committee stresses that in order to provide meaningful and timely replies to questions posed by the other committees, it is necessary that they examine the matrix and provide preliminary direction.

The Engineering Committee does not intend to pursue all the items on the matrix and requests reaction by February 1, 1975, from the other committees regarding areas in which the Engineering Committee should concentrate its efforts.

Other Committee requests to the Engineering Committee should respond in detail to the following types of questions:

1. What are your objectives/problems?

2 . Do you have any suggested alternatives? How do you priorize these?

3 . What parameters and limits are you concerned with? What priorities and limits do you place on these paramaters?

4 . How detailed and accurate, and in what format do you want our technical answers to be?

5. When do you need an answer?

IV . SCHEDULE

The Engineering Conunittee has developed a schedule incorpora- ting five major activities as outlined below:

1. General engineering assistance to other committees. On-going.

2. Project familiarization December 5 to February 1.

a) Briefing from USBR, Canadian agencies, other U.S. agencies. b) Review of IJC Hearing Briefs. c) Preliminary review of other available documents which address

alternatives.

3 . Investigation of specific alternatives as required by other committees, February 1 to April 1.

4 . Cost estimates of selected alternatives, April 1 to June 1.

5. Report writing, April 1 to July 1.

Feedback from other committees on February 1, with a deadline for input of April 1.

A summary of the above can be given graphically by bar chart:

Preliminary Input Required from other Deadline for input Committees

.L from other Committees

I> J F M A M J J A I I I I I I I I f

1.

2 . """""

3 . " ""

4 . """

5. """

V. REQUIRED FUNDING

In order that the Engineering Committee can carry out its functions as indicated in its Plan of Study and Schedule it forecasts its expenditures as follows:

Committee salaries including Agency costs $130,000 Travel expenses 25,000

TOTAL $155,000

In addition the Committee recognizes that it may be necessary to obtain consulting expertise on a contractural basis in order to respond to requests from the other committees. It estimates this contract work at $50 ,000 , although no specific items can be identified at this time .

VI. REPORTING TO THE STUDY BOARD

A . Interim: Approved Engineering Committee minutes will be submitted to the Board automatically in addition to any other reports requested by the Board.

B. Final: An approved final Engineering Committee report will be submitted to the Board on July 1, 1976.

E - l - 7

ATTACHMENT E-2

NINE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RE: McCLUSKY CANAL FISH SCREEN

E-2-1

The fo l lowing are t h e n i n e t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e McClusky Canal Fish Screen and the answers provided by the USBR a t a jo in t meet ing of the Engineer ing and Bio logy Commit tees .

1. What m o n i t o r i n g s y s t e m s , t o d e t e c t f a i l u r e s i n t h e f i s h screen complex, are proposed? Details on the type and loca t ion of sen- s o r s are r eques t ed .

Answer: Three alarms which warn of excessive c logging are in- c l u d e d i n t h e d e s i g n . The f i r s t m e a s u r e s d i f f e r e n t i a l h e a d a c r o s s t h e t r a s h c o l l e c t o r . I f t h e t r a s h starts t o c l o g , t h e water s u r f a c e w i l l rise on t h e u p s t r e a m s i d e o f t h e c o l l e c t o r . When t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n water s u r f a c e e l e v a t i o n f r o m t h e upstream t o t h e d o w n s t r e a m s i d e o f t h e c o l - l e c t o r r e a c h e s a set p o i n t , t h e alarm would sound. The second alarm w i l l b e l o c a t e d i n t h e t r a s h t r o u g h n e a r t h e e x i t p o r t . The alarm w i l l be a c t i v a t e d when t h e water s u r f a c e i n t h e t r o u g h comes i n c o n t a c t w i t h a n e l e c t r i c a l p r o b e . The bot tom of the probe w i l l be set approximate ly two i n c h e s a b o v e t h e t r o u g h f l o o r . The t h i r d alarm w i l l l i k e w i s e b e a c t i - v a t e d b y a n e l e c t r i c a l p r o b e . T h i s alarm w i l l b e l o c a t e d i n t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s t r u c t u r e . The a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n f i l t e r s a l l f l o w s t h a t pass o v e r t h e m a i n s c r e e n s a n d i n t o t h e t r o u g h s . The probes would be l o c a t e d a t t h e weir above t he aux i l i a ry s c reens and wou ld be pos i t i oned so t h a t t h e alarm would be ac t iva ted if t h e f l o w o v e r t h e weir i s g r e a t e r t h a n o n e f o o t d e e p ( t h i s c o r r e s p o n d s t o a d i scha rge o f 27 c f s or 50% of capac i ty . Wi th t he sound ing o f t h i s alarm, automatic shutdown of the cana l would begin . Puncture damage o f t h e s c r e e n s would be de tec ted by v i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n . The backup screens, which would always be i n place d u r i n g s e r v i c e s c r e e n o p e r a t i o n , are pro tec ted f rom damage by t h e s e r v i c e s c r e e n s . The backup s c reens wou ld i n su re con t inued f i l t r a t ion even if t h e s e r v i c e s c r e e n s were damaged.

2. What i s t h e mechanism t o c o n t r o l f l o w s f r o m t h e t r a s h t rough i n to t he c l eanou t chambers? What are t h e d e s i g n a n d o p e r a t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n c o n a u i t a n d t h e a u x i l i a r y screen s t r u c - t u r e ? Is it p o s s i b l e f o r t h e h e a d t o b u i l d up on t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n due t o d e b r i s p l u g g i n g t h e s c r e e n t o o v e r s t r e s s t h e s c r e e n ?

Answer: A s now planned , t rash would be manual ly moved from t h e t r a s h t r o u g h t o t h e c l e a n o u t c h a m b e r s . I f d e b r i s q u a n t i t i e s were found t o be excess ive , an end le s s be l t - type cou ld be u sed t o move t h e d e b r i s .

The c o l l e c t i o n c o n d u i t a n d a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n are d e s i g n e d t o pas s a maximum d i scha rge o f 54 c f s . S t r u c t u r a l l y t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n s are i d e n t i c a l t o t h e m a i n s c r e e n s . E a c h s c r e e n p a n e l was designed f o r a s t a t i c l o a d o f 1 . 7 5 f t . , o f water w i t h a f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f a p p r o x i - m a t e l y t h r e e . The s l ide ga t e s wh ich con t ro l d ra inage o f f l ow f rom the t r a s h t r o u g h t o t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n a u t o m a t i c a l l y c l o s e when f l o w t o t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n r e a c h e s 50% o f t h e a u x i l i a r y s c r e e n ' s c a p a c i t y .

E-2- 3

The s l i d e g a t e s w i l l b e d e s i g n e d t o c l o s e i n less t h a n t h r e e m i n u t e s . Thus t h e s c r e e n s w o u l d h a v e t o p l u g a l m o s t i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y i f h e a d bu i ld up and s c reen stress were t o become problems.

3 . What i s t h e d a i l y l o a d o f c a n a l d e t r i t u s m a t e r i a l e x p e c t e d t o b e c o l l e c t e d on t h e f i s h s c r e e n ? How w i l l t h i s material b e removed from the sc reen and where and how w i l l t h i s material be d i sposed o f ?

Answer: The d a i l y l o a d of d e t r i t u s material i s n o t known. There w i l l b e a n i n i t i a l p e r i o d o f several y e a r s when t h e d i s c h a r g e t h r o u g h t h e s t r u c t u r e w i l l be w e l l below i t s maximum c a p a c i t y . It is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d c l e a n i n g a n d d e b r i s h a n d l i n g d e v i c e s and techniques can be deve loped as t h e n e e d arises. P rov i s ions have a l - ready been made f o r t h e p o s s i b l e a d d i t i o n o f a fou r -mesh t r ave l l i ng water s c r e e n .

A s o f now i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e d e b r i s removed from t h e f l o w w i l l b e p l a c e d i n a c losed bas in where i t w i l l be sp read and d r i ed . When d r y , it w o u l d b e e i t h e r b u r n e d o r b u r i e d . It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t , i f p r o v e n b o t h d e s i r a b l e a n d f e a s i b l e , t h e d e b r i s c o u l d b e u s e d as f i s h f o o d o r f e r t i l i z e r .

4 . What procedures are p roposed fo r c l ean ing a c logged sc reen? E x p l a i n i n d e t a i l w h a t m o n i t o r i n g d e v i c e s w i l l b e u s e d t o a l e r t 0&M f o r c e s t h a t a s c r e e n is plugged. How w i l l s c r e e n s e c t i o n b e u n w a t e r e d ? How w i l l screen be removed and replaced?

Answer: The proposed s tandard procedure for c leaning screens would be as f o l l o w s :

a. Lower b u l k h e a d f r o m c e i l i n g u n t i l it i s s e a t e d a g a i n s t t h e u p s t r e a m s i d e of t h e weir. This removes the f low f rom t h e p o r t i o n o f s c r e e n t o b e c l e a n e d .

b. Remove d e b r i s f r o m t h e s c r e e n s i n p l a c e b y u s i n g water s p r a y a n d / o r b r u s h i n g . P u t s c r e e n s b a c k i n t o o p e r a t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t i f a d e q u a t e l y c l e a n e d .

c. Clean seal r e g i o n s t o make s u r e n o l o o s e d e b r i s f a l l s through when s c r e e n s are removed.

d . Remove s c r e e n s a n d r e p l a c e w i t h p r e v i o u s l y c l e a n e d s c r e e n s . The b u l k h e a d c a n t h e n b e r a i s e d a n d t h e s c r e e n s p u t b a c k i n t o o p e r a t i o n .

e. The c l o g g e d s c r e e n s c a n t h e n b e e i t h e r c l e a n e d i n s i d e t h e s t r u c t u r e o r o n t h e s u r f a c e .

E-2-4

The m o n i t o r i n g d e v i c e t h a t a ler ts O&M f o r c e s is d i s c u s s e d i n t h e a n s w e r t o q u e s t i o n 1. The most important alarm i n t h i s respect is t h e o n e i n t h e t r a s h t r o u g h . A s t h e s c r e e n s start t o c l o g , small q u a n t i t i e s o f f l o w w i l l e n t e r t h e t r o u g h . By hav ing t he alarm sound when f l o w s i n t h e t rough are small, t h e O&M f o r c e s are g iven adequate time t o c l e a n t h e s c r e e n s . I n a d d i t i o n , d u r i n g e a r l y o p e r a t i o n of t h e s c r e e n , c l o s e v i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e s c r e e n s w i l l be main ta ined . Cleaning w i l l be done as r e q u i r e d .

The s c r e e n s e c t i o n s w i l l be unwatered through the use of a moveable bulkhead that i s h inged f rom the ce i l i ng . The bulkhead can be l o w e r e d f r o m t h e c e i l i n g i n t o a v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h i t s lower end i s s e a t e d a g a i n s t t h e u p s t r e a m wall o f t h e weir. The seat between the wall and bulkhead is r u b b e r i z e d f o r a t i g h t seal. The bulkhead i s 18 fee t long which a l lows the removal of up t o t h r e e s c r e e n p a n e l s a t one time. The s c r e e n p a n e l s are small enough tha t one man can handle them. A h o i s t w h i c h w i l l assist i n removal and replacement of screen panels is a t t a c h e d t o the bu lkhead ra i l . It w i l l be recommended t h a t new s c r e e n s be wiped c lean before they are p laced .

5. E x p l a i n t h e j o i n t i n g d e t a i l s o f t h e n e o p r e n e seals be tween ad jacen t s c reen s ec t ions .

Answer: Al t e rna t ing s c reen pane l s have neoprene seals on both s ides . These seal by l app ing ove r t he ad jo in ing pane l s by approx ima te ly three inches . Replacement o f pane ls wi thout seals r e q u i r e s t h e r e m o v a l of t h ree pane l s . Neoprene seals w i l l comple te ly sur round each pane l o f the backup sc reen and w i l l b e on a l l bu t t he downs t r eam end o f t he s e rv i ce sc reen pane l s .

6 . What rate of f low is r e q u i r e d t o e n s u r e t h a t c o l l e c t e d material i s f l u s h e d f r o m t h e s c r e e n s i n t o t h e t r o u g h s ?

Answer : Ques t ion does no t apply to s t ruc ture opera t ion as in t ended .

7 . What is the s equence of even t s p roposed i n t he even t o f comple te c logging of t he s c reens? Th i s shou ld i nc lude canal shutdown sequence , s t ruc ture dewater ing procedure and c leaning and rep lacement of s c r e e n s e c t i o n s .

Answer: I n t h e e v e n t o f severe c l o g g i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g would occur:

a . The alarms would sound.

b . The s l i d e g a t e s t h a t c o n t r o l d r a i n a g e f r o m t h e t r a s h t roughs wou ld au tomat i ca l ly c lose .

E- 2- 5

C ,

d.

e.

f .

g.

a .

The r a d i a l g a t e s a t upstream checks would a u t o m a t i c a l l y c l o s e .

The pumps a t Snake Creek Pumping P l a n t would a u t o m a t i c a l l y t u r n o f f .

S top l o g s would be p l aced a t the upstream end of t h e s c r e e n s t r u c t u r e .

The s t r u c t u r e would be pumped o u t ( r e t u r n i n g t h e water t o t h e c a n a l u p s t r e a m o f t h e s t r u c t u r e ) .

Screens would be c leaned and replaced as p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d .

What p r o v i s i o n s are incorpora ted in to main tenance p ro- c e d u r e t o e n s u r e no a c c i d e n t a l t r a n s f e r of water-borne material a c r o s s t h e f i s h s c r e e n s t r u c t u r e ?

Answer: The o n l y time when a c c i d e n t a l t r a n s f e r of water- borne material c o u l d occur i s when backup sc reen pane ls are removed o r rep]-aced. This should be a f a i r l y rare o p e r a t i o n s i n c e t h e m a j o r i t y o f deb r i s hand l ing and s c reen wear w i l l be a t t h e s e r v i c e s c r e e n . Care w i l l b e t a k e n i n c l e a n i n g t h e r e g i o n s a r o u n d t h e seals before backup screen removal . L ikewise , a l l l o o s e material w i l l be washed from the sc reen be fo re r emova l . I n r ep lac ing s c reens ca re w i l l aga in be taken t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e s c r e e n p a n e l s are c l e a n and have no c l i n g i n g d e b r i s .

9 . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t a t r a v e l l i n g w a t e r s r r e e n i s proposed be tween the t rashracks and the sc reens . When i s i t e x p e c t e d t h a t t h i s f a c i l i t y w i l l b e i n s t a l l e d ? What are t h e gene ra l des ign de t a i1 . s of such a s c r e e n ?

Answer: The s t r u c t u r e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c e p t t r a v e l l i n g water s c r e e n s i f needed. Such sc.reens would be placed j u s t downstream o f t h e t r a s h c o l l e c t o r . B e c a u s e o f l imi t ed head loss t h a t c o u l d b e t o l e r a t e d , a four-mesh screen i s t h e f i n e s t t h a t could be used . This t r a v e l l i n g s c r e e n would be similar in des ign t o t hose manufac tu red by Link-Belt , Colmar, Pennsylvania 15915; and Envirex, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201.

-~

E-2-6

ATTACHMENT E-3

SEDIMENT RATING CURVES AND INCREASED SEDIMENT LOAD TABLES

E-3-1

ATTA

CH

MEN

T E-3 n

a

0

-I

M I

W I Ll

I

1,000 IO, 000 100,000

ATTA

CH

MEN

T E-3

n

w

cr

A T T A C H " E-3

STAT I O N :

TABm 1

SOURIS RIVER nr. WESTHOPE

Concentration

Historic flow Sediment load

W/GDU flow Sediment load

Flow increase Sediment load increase

Concentration




Concentration




(mdl)

(1000 ac. f t . ) ( 1000 tons )

(1000 ac. f t . ) ( 1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . )

(1000 tons)

(m&)

(1000 ac. f t .) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . ) (1000 tons)

(1O0O ac. f t . )

(1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . ) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . ) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. ft.)

(1000 tons)

Dec-Feb

36

4.6 0.2

15.8 0.8

11.2

0.6

38

5 .7 0.3

16 .O 0.8

10.3

0.5

65

0.1 0.1

11.3 1.0

11 03

1.0

E- 3- 8

Mar-May June-Auq Sept-Nov Annual

Average Year - 1936-1974

33 34

59.3 10.1 2.6 0.5

90.6 36.4 4.0 1.7

31.3 26.3

1.4 1.2

Wet Year - 1969

26 40

161.4 5 00 5 .7 0.3

189 0'7 31.7 6.7 1.7

28.3 26.7

1.0 1.4

Dry Year - 1961

43 44

3.1 1.5 0.2 0.1

32 .o 27.3 1.9 1.6

28.9 25.8

1.7 1 * 5

28

169 -4 6.5

250.6 10.1

81.2

3.6

27

643 6 23 -3

720.4 26.7

76.8

3.4

44

5.9 0.4

83.6 5.4

77 -7

5 .o

ATTACHMENT E-3

TABU 2

STATION: RED RIVER a t E;MERSON

Dec-Feb Mar-May June-Auq Sept-Nov Annual

Average Year - 1912-1975 Concent r a t i o n (mdl) 31 26% 190 73 212

Historic flow (1000 ac. f t .) 139.6 1324.2 644.3 243 .6 2351.7 Sediment load ( ICOO tons) 5.8 k83 0 % 166.4 24.1 680.1

W/GDU flow (1000 ac. ft.) 146.8 1330.3 657.0 255.9 2390 . 1 Sediment load (1000 tons) 6.1 4.86 .O 169 7 25 -3 687.1

Flow increase (1ooO ac. f t . ) 7 .2 6.1 12.7 12.3 38.3 Sediment load increase (1000 tons) 0.3 2 02 3 .3 1.2 7.0

Wet Year - 1969 Concentration (mdl) kl 332 166 56 270

Histor ic flow (1000 ac. f t .) 290.5 3554.1 759.0 384.3 4951.9 Sediment load (1000 tons) 16.3 1604.6 171.6 26.3 1818 . 8

W/GDU flow (1000 ac. ft.) 297.7 3560.2 771 7 360.6 4990 2 Sediment load (1000 tons) 16.7 1607.4 174.5 27.2 1825 . 8

Flow increase (1000 ac. ft.) 7.2 6.1 12.7 12 .3 38.3 Sediment load increase ( 1000 tons ) 0.4. 2.8 2.9 0.9 7.0

D r y Year - 1961 Concentration (mdl) 4 83 19 9 57

Historic flow (1000 ac. f t . ) 53.6 407 7 110 . 1 76.9 64f3.3 Sediment load (1000 tons) 0.3 46 .O 2.8 0.9 50 .O

W/GDU flow (1000 ac. f t . ) 60.8 413 8 122.8 89.2 686.6 Sediment load (1000 tons) 0 .3 46 .7 3.1 1.1 51.2

Flow increase (1000 ac. f t . ) 7.2 6.1 12.7 12.3 38.3 Sediment load increase ( 1000 tons ) 0 0.7 0.3 0 02 1.2

E-3-9

Concentration




Concent ra t ion


w/Gsu flow Sediment load


Concentration




ATTACHMENT Ek3

TABLF; 3

STATION: A S I N I B O I N E RIVER above TORTAGE

(mdl)

(1000 ac. f t . ) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . ) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . )

(1000 tons)

(mdl) (1000 ac. f t . )

(1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . ) ( 1000 tons )

(1OOo ac. f t . )

tons)

(1000 ac. ft.) ( 1000 tons )

Dec-Feb

160

79 e 3

17.2

92 -0 20 .o 12.7

2.8

10

60 .O 8.2

72.9 8.3

12.9

0.1

53 5

28 .O 2.0

(lo00 ac. f t . ) , 40.9 ( 1000 tons ) 11.4

(1000 ac. f t . ) 12.9

(1000 tons ) 9.4

Mar-May June-Auq Sept-Nov Annual

Average Year - 1923-1974 385

744.7 390.4

756.0 396.3

11.3

5 .?

472

1364. 1 876.2

1374.3 882.8

10.2

6.6

186

160 . 4 40.7

170 9 43 -3

10.5

2.6

E- 3- 10

5-02 . 6 156.3 217.2 39.4

532.5 184. 2 230 . 2 46.4

29.9 27.9

13 m 0 7 .o

584.8 126 . 4 231.1 24.2

30.1 28.2

11.9 5.h

Dry Year - 1961 79 78

43.5 47.5 4.7 5.1

71.0 74.4 7.7 7.9

27.5 26.9

3 00 2 .8

Concentration




Concentration




Concentration

Histor ic flow Sediment load



1/ No flows

A T T A C H ” 0 3

TABLE 4 STATION: PORTAGE DrVERSION

(1000 ac. f t .) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t .) (1000 tons)

(1000 tons)

(mdl

(1000 ac. f t . ) (1000 tons)

(1000 ac. f t . ) ( 1000 tons )

(1000 ac. f t . )

( 1000 tons )

(mdQ (1000 a c e ft.) (1000 tons)

(1000 ace f t .) (1000 tons)

(1000 ace f t . )

(1000 tons)

E-3-1 1

- June July Aug. Annual

Average Year - 1913-1974 4-8b 4.62 439 515

0.8 0.4 0 2.9

0.5 0.2 0 2.0

Wet Year - 1969 0 0 0 5 u

0 0 0 532.3 391-7

0 0 0 537.2 395.2

0 0 0 4. 9

0 0 0 3.5

Dry Year - 1961 r/

ATTACHMENT Ei3

TABU 5

STATION: RED RIVER a t LOCKPORT

Concentrat ion (mdl) Historic flow (1000 ac. f t . )

Sediment load (1000 tons)

W/GDU f low (1000 ac. f t . ) Sediment load (1000 tons)

Flow increase (1000 ac. ft.) Sediment load increase (1000 tons)

Concentration (mdU Historic flow (1000 ac. ft.)

Sediment load (1000 tons)

W/GDU f low (1000 ac. f t . ) Sediment load (1000 tons)

Flow increase (1000 ac. f t . ) Sediment load increase ( 1000 tons )

Concentration (mdl)

Historic flow (1000 ac. f t .) Sediment load ( 1000 tons )

W/GDU flow (1000 ac. ft.) Sediment load ( 1000 tons )

Flow increase (1000 ac. f t . ) Sediment load increase ( 1000 tons)

Dec-Feb

17

322 00 7.7

342 08 8.2

20.8

0.5

12

290- 5 5 .o

310 .3 5.3

19.8

0.3

19

375.9 9.9

396 -8 10.4

20.9

0.5

Mar-May June-Aug Sept-Nov Annual

Average Year - 1962-1974 328

3532.7 1578 9

3547.5 1585 5

14.8

6.6

366

5169 -3 2575 6

5180.0 2580.9

1-0 . 7 5 -3

119

906 .O 46.2

922.7 148 9

16.7

2.7

169 49

1611 . 2 605.0

1652.2 646.2 379.5 43 04

41.0 41.2

9.4 2.7

370.1 40.7

Wet Year - 1969 145 29

1.566.1 539.4 308.6 21.3

1607.8 580 7 316.9 22.9

41.7 41.3

8.3 1.6

Dry Year - 1973 1 5 51

322.9 740 6 6.8 51.7

364.5 782 .O 7.6 54.6

41.6 41.4

0.8 2.9

242

6070.9 1997 4

6188.7 2016.6

117.8

19.2

283

7565.3 2910.5

7678.8 2926 .o 113 5

15. 5

67

2345 4 214.6

2466 0 221.5

120.6

6.9

E-3-11?

ATTACHMENT E-4

VELVA CANAL DIVERSION FLOWS REQUIRED TO RESTORE PRE-PROJECT TDS CONCENTRATIONS IN

S O U R I S R I V E R

E-4-1

Velva Canal Divers ion F lows Requi red to Res tore Pre-Pro jec t TDS C o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n S o u r i s R i v e r

With GDU as Planned Month Peak

J a n . 0 . 6 0

Feb. (Note 1)

Mar. 54.17

A p r . (Note 2 )

May (Note 2 )

June 51.27

J u l y 6 5 . 0 6

Aug. (Note 3 )

S e p t . 81 .40

Oct. 1 7 . 2 3

Nov. 1 0 . 3 8

Dec . 3 . 6 2

" - EQuil i b r ium

(Note 1)

(Note 1)

4 2 . 7 0

(Note 2 )

(Note 2 )

4 5 . 4 2

5 6 . 9 8

(Note 3 )

7 0 . 8 6

1 3 . 3 1

6 .57

1 . 9 1

(1,000 a c . f t . )

With GDU Modif ied (P lan I) With GDU Modif ied (Plan 11) Peak

(Note 1)

(Note 1)

4 3 . 3 3

(Note 2 )

(Note 2)

45 .85

57.57

(Note 3)

7 1 . 6 0

13 .65

6 . 9 4

2.05

- Equi l ibr ium

(Note 1)

(Note 1)

39 .63

(Note 2 )

(Note 2 )

4 3 . 7 1

54 .69

118 .64

67 .96

1 1 . 8 3

5.20

1 . 3 5

Peak

(Note 1)

(Note 1)

4 6 . 2 2

(Note 2 )

(Note 2)

4 6 . 5 8

5 8 . 3 9

(Note 3 )

72.97

14 .06

7 . 3 3

2.20

Equi l ibr ium

(Note 1)

(Note 1)

42.00

(Note 2 )

(Note 2 )

44 .28

55 .33

(Note 3 )

68 .98

1 2 . 1 2

5 . 5 4

1 .44

Note 1: In these months , d ivers ion f rom the cana l would be unnecessary because with-GDU c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f TDS w i l l b e less t h a n t h e p r e - p r o j e c t c o n c e n t r a t i o n .

Note 2 : I n t h e s e m o n t h s , d i l u t i o n down t o p r e - p r o j e c t TDS leve ls i s i m p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e l a t t e r are less t h a n 4 4 0 mg/ l , t he TDS concentra- t i on i n t he Ve lva Cana l . However , TDS v a l u e s i n t h e S o u r i s are lowes t a t t h i s time o f t h e y e a r .

Note 3 : In t hese mon ths , t he concep t i s i m p r a c t i c a l b e c a u s e t h e r e q u i r e d d ivers ion f rom the cana l would exceed i t s p h y s i c a l c a p a c i t y o f 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 ac . f t . /mo . ( abou t 2,000 c f s ) .

E-4- 3

ATTACHMENT E-5

PLAN OF SOURIS RIVER SHOWING PLAN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND DESIGNATIONS

E-5 - 1

U. I. GOVIRNMENT PRlNllNG OFFICI: 1976.766. ln

the report of the international garrison diversion study board is · 2013-05-10 · will increase...

Documents