IMPACTS ON CAMADA OF 0PERA.TION OF THE BURLINGTON

IMPACTS ON CAMADA OF 0PERA.TION OF THE BURLINGTON

ATTACHMENT 2
REPORT TO THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT C O ~ I S S I O N
IMPACTS ON CAMADA
OF 0PERA.TION OF THE
BURLINGTON PROJECT
SOURIS RIVER
WORTH DAKOTA
OCTOBER 9, 1980
.
'
.+
PART I - INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO INTERNATIONAL J O I N T COMMISSION
ON BURL INGTON PROJ ECT
The flow of the Souris River i s characterized by spring floods and
frequent periods of low flow w i t h some no flow periods. The spring
flood i s most often caused by snowmelt, although rains have caused
l e s s e r floods in l a t e spring o r early summer. The v a r i a b i l i t y i n flow
from year t o year i s g r e a t with the volume in a high flow year being close
t o 500 times the volume i n a low flow year. I t is also possible t o have
sequences of several wet o r dry years i n a row.
< .
r'
'
Major floods occurred i n 1892, 1904 and 1948. Severe flooding occurred
i n 1969 followed by a sequence of h i g h flow years such t h a t the maximum
d a i l y discharge a t Sherwood, above the pr~posedBurl ington Project, has
exceeded 5000 CFS f i v e times i n the l a s t eleven years compared t o seven
times i n the previous 90 years.
Studies of flood problems on the Souris River in North Dakota were begun
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1963. These studies culminated in
a "Review Summary Report for Flood Control on Souris River", North Dakota,
which recommended a storage reservoir and channel improvements, primarily
through Minot. The proposed Burlington dam would be located on the Souris
River j u s t upstream of the confluence with the Des Lacs River. The dam
would inundate the existing Lake Darling and flood waters would be released
over the following summer and f a l l a t a controlled rate.
A t the request of the International J o i n t Commission, the International
Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Board reviewed the Corps' Survey Report. On
November 5, 1969, the Board advised the Comniission t h a t the Burlington
Project had the potential to adversely a f f e c t Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The impact on Saskatchewan would be from high Burlington Reservoir l e v e l s
and from r e l a t i v e l y large summer and f a l l releases. In 1970, the Commission
requested the Board t o carry out the necessary studies t o determine the
nature and extent of these potential adverse a f f e c t s .
I n 1972 a d e c i s i o n was made by t h e Corps t o i n c r e a s e t h e design c a p a c i t y
f o r t h e conveyance works through M i n o t t o 5000 CFS and t h e work was
completed by 1978.
The B u r l i n g t o n P r o j e c t was a l s o r e f o r m u l a t e d i n 1976
t o reduce t h e r e s e r v o i r l e v e l and r e l e a s e r a t e s and i n c o r p o r a t e a
d i v e r s i o n from t h e Des Lacs r i v e r system. The Board commenced s t u d i e s o f
t h e p r o j e c t r e f o r m u l a t i o n and r e p o r t e d t o t h e Commission i n November 1977.
F o l l o w i n g r e c e i p t o f t h e 1977 r e p o r t t h e Commission requested t h e Board
t o c o n s i d e r addi t i o n a l questions r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o j e c t , i n c l u d i n g economic
and environmental- impacts and m i t i g a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s .
More s p e c i f i c a l l y
s t u d y was undertaken o f :
1.
Economic and environmental impact on Canada o f o p e r a t i o n
o f the Burlington Project
2.
t h e nature, scope and c o s t o f a1 t e r n a t i v e mi t i g a t i o n measures
3.
t h e p h y s i c a l impact, i f any, o f t h e planned a l t e r a t i o n t o '
s t r u c t u r e s i n J. C l a r k S a l y e r W i l d l i f e Refuge
4.
t h e environmental impacts on Canada a s s o c i a t e d w i t h implementation
o f a l t e r n a t i v e m i t i g a t i o n measures.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d i e s were t h e n combined w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e 1977
r e p o r t such t h a t t h e r e p o r t r e c e i v e d by t h e Commission on March 26, 1980
addresses b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l r e q u e s t and t h e more r e c e n t request.
B e f o r e t h e opening remarks r e f e r e n c e w i l l be made t o t h e l o c a t i o n
maps, t h e r o l e o f t h e Ta,sk Force, t h e d i f f e r e n c e between B u r l i n g t o n Dam
and B u r l i n g t o n P r o j e c t , and general s t r u c t u r e o f p r e s e n t a t i o n t o f o l l o w .
Note:
'7
7
PART 11
-
SUMMARY OF REPORT TO IJC ON IMPACTS ON CANADA OF
OPERATION OF BURLINGTON PROJECT
T h i s i s a summaty of t h e r e p o r t p r e p a r e d b y ' t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l .
Souris-Red R i v e r s Engineering Board on t h e i m p a c t s of t h e B u r l i n g t o n
p r o j e c t on Canada.
F i g u r e 1 i s a map of t h e b a s i n .
..
.
.
The S o u r i s R i v e r b a s i n ~ n c o m p a s s e sa b o u t 23,800 s q u a r e miles i n
s o u t h e a s t e r n Saskatchewan, s o u t h w e s t e r n Manitoba, and n o r t h w e s t e r n N o r t h
Dakota.
.
O f t h e t o t a l a r e a , 62 p e r c e n t i s i n Canada and 38 p e r c e n t i s
w i t h i n t h e United S t a t e s .
The S o u r i s R i v e r o r i g i n a t e s i n Saskatchewan and f l o w s s o u t h e a s t f o r
217 m i l e s b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e United S t a t e s n e a r Sherwood, North Dakota.
The r i v e r t r a v e l s 358 m i l e s i n Korth Dakota from n e a r Sherwood t o Westhope
and a n o t h e r 154 m i l e s i n l l a n i t o b a b e f o r e G p t y i n g i n t o t h e A s s i n i b o i n e
River.
The Sou'ris R i v e r , normally s l u g g i s h , meanders i n an o v e r s i z e d v a l l e y
c u t when t h e r i v e r w a s swollen w i t h g l a c i a l m e l t w a t e r .
The n a t u r a l c h a n n e l
c a p a c i t y v a r i e s from about 2,000 c i s above Minot t o c o n s i d e r a b l y less t h a n
1,000 c f s i n t h e Towner and Westhope a r e a s .
During 1935 and 1936 t h e U.S.
F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e c o n s t r u c t e d
and p l a c e d i n o p e r a t i o n t h r e e m i g r a t o r y waterfowl r e f u g e s i n the S o u r i s
River b a s i n , o n e on the Des Lacs R i v e r and two on t h e S o u r i s River.
The
Des Lacs R i v e r p r o j e c t c o n s i s t s of a s e r i e s of e i g h t dams t o r e g u l a t e
w a t e r l e v e l s i n r e s e r v o i r s i n t h e upper r e a c h of t h e r i v e r .
The Upper
S o u r i s R i v e r p r o j e c t i s a series of f o u r dams and r e s e r v o i r s i n c l u d i n g
Lake D a r l i n g .
Lake D a r l i n g R e s e r v o i r i s used p r i m a r i l y f o r s u p p l y i n g
w a t e r t o s m a l l e r impoundments downstream'as r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n f a v o r a b l e
waterfowl c o n d i t i o n s .
The J. C l a r k S a l y e r p r o j e c t p r o v i d e s f o r ponding
w a t e r behind a s e r i e s of f i v e low dams.
1
.
Flows on t h e S o u r i s River a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d l b y s p r i n g f l o o d s and
f r e q u e n t prolonged p e r i o d s of low flow w i t h some no flow p e r i o d s .
Major
f l o o d flows r e s u l t from snowmelt o r a combination of snowmelt and r a i n -
--
f a l l o r i g i n a t i n g i n t h e upper S o u r i s River b a s i q i n Canada.
Approximately
93 p e r c e n t of a l l p a s t ' f l o o d damages a t Minot have r e s u l t e d from h i g h
flows o r i g i n a t i n g p r i m a r i l y i n Saskatchewan.
The remaining 7 p e r c e n t '
r e s u l t e d from £Lows i n t h e Des Lacs River b a s i n .
On t h e lower r e a c h of
t h e r i v e r i n North Dakota and i n Manitoba, f l o o d s o f t e n have two peaks;
t h e f i r s t r e p r e s e n t i n g l o c a l r u n o f f from a r e a s t r i b u t a r y t o t h e lower
'
,
r e a c h e s of t h e r i v e r and t h e second r e s u l t i n g from r u n o f f o r i g i n a t i n g i n
.
,
Saskatchewan.
'
I.
The g r e a t e s t recorded f l o o d i n t h e b a s i n o c c u r r e d i n 1904 w i t h an
A-
e s t i m a t e d d i s c h a r g e o f 12,000 c f s a t Minot. - A. f l o o d a t Minot 3 feet
h i g h e r t h a n t h e r e c o r d 1904 f l o o d i s r e p o r t e d t o have o c c u r r e d i n 1882.
As a r e s u l t of t h e s e and s e v e r a l o t h e r s e r i o u s f l o o d s p r i o r t o 1930, t h e
L
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers became involved w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g the need
f o r f l o o d r e d u c t i o n measures on t h e S o u r i s River.
'
..
I n 1930, 1935, 1938,
1957, and 1969, t h e Corps r e p o r t e d t o Congress on t h e f l o o d problems of
t h e S o u r i s Valley.
.
Although o c c u r r i n g i n f r e q u e n t l y , l a r g e f l o o d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e
d e s t r u c t i v e f l o o d s of 1969, 1975, and 1976;as
shown on f i g u r e 2, have
caused e x t e n s i v e p r o p e r t y damages and s e r i o u s human h a r d s h i p i n t h e S o u r i s
River b a s i n .
S i n c e 1936, Lake D a r l i n g R e s e r v o i r h a s reduced f l o o d damages
from t h e inore f r e q u e n t , smaller f l o o d s .
However, t h e 1969 f l o o d and the
f l o o d s of t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s have g r e a t l y exceeded t h e a v a i l a b l e f l o o d ' s t o r a g e '
.
capacity.
-
Based upon t h e s t u d i e s completed i n 1969 by t h e U.S.
Engineers, t h e U.S.
Army Corps of
Congress a u t h o r i z e d , by t h e Flood C o n t r o l Act of 1970,
t h e B u r l i n g t o n Dam and R e s e r v o i r and channel improvements on t h e S o u r i s
River p r i m a r i l y through Minot,
The proposed B u r l i n g t o n Dam and R e s e r v o i r
would c o n s i s t o f a dam on t h e S o u r i s River 0.5 m i l e upstream of the conf l u e n c e w i t h t h e Des Lacs River.
A t higher s t o r a g e l e v e l s t h e r e s e r v o i r
I
FLOODING AT MINOT, .NORTH DAKOTA
PLZSIFIUM
Y L2R
DIS CIIARGE
(CPS)
PEAK DISCIlARGE
FREQUENCY
(Ymm)
30-DAY
VOLU!.iE
(ACRE-FEET)
(1) CALCULATED DISCHARGE IF LAKE DARLING DAM HAD BEEN IN PLACE.
(2) U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAGE UPSTREAM OF MINOT.
VOLWIE
FREQUE::CY
(YEARS)
c r e a t e d by t h e proposed dam would i n u n d a t e t h e e x i s t i n g Lake D a r l i n g
*
Dam and R e s e r v o i r .
The Minot c h a n n e l improvenents would p r o v i d e f o r
t h e s a f e p a s s a g e o f ' f l o w s up t o 3,800 c f s .
Floodwaters s t o r e d i n t E e
B u r l i n g t o n R e s e r v o i r would b e r e l e a s e d o v e r t h e f o l l o w i n g summer and
f a l l a t a c o n t r o l l e d r a t e n o t exceeding 2,300 c f s u n t i a f l o o d s t o r a g e
was exhausted.
With a f u l l p o o l , t h i s would r e q u i r e a p e r i o d of a b o u t
180 d a y s ,
The a y t h o r i z e d r e s e r v o i r p r o j e c t would p r o v i d e Minot and o t h e r
dormstream u r b a n flood-prone a r e a s w i t h a t l e a s t t h e c o n s i d e r e d minimi
d e g r e e of I;rotection of o n c e i n 1 0 0 y e a r s f r o = a l l f l o o d s o u r c e s .
Tbe
a u t h o r i z e d p r o j e c t was h i g h l y f a v o r e d by t h e r e s i d e n t s of Minot, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o l l o w i n g t h e i r d i s a s t r o u s e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g t h e 1969 f l o o d ,
How-
e v e r , Corps o f E n g i n e e r s reviewing o f f i c i a l s expressed concern t h a t f l o o d s
exceeding t h e d e s i g n c a p a c i t y of t h e r e s e r v o i r c o u l d c a u s e l o s s of l i f e
and e x c e s s i v e economic l o s s e s .
~ o s t a u t h o r i z a ~ i csqt u d i e s were recommended
z
t o c o n s i d e r a p l a n which would p r o v i d e a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f p r o t e c t i o n a t
Hinot.
t
Conversely, r a n c h e r s i n t h e upper and lower .S. o u r i s R i v e r v a l l e y
a r e a s , t h e U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , and Canadlan i n t e r e s t s both
i n Saskatchewan and Minitoba r e q u e s t e d t h a t f u r t h e r s t u d i e s b.e g, i v e n t o
a r e s e r v o i r and o p e r a t i n g p l a n which would l e s s e n the r i s k of fJooding
of l a n d s a l o n g t h e upper S o u r i s R i v e r due t o r e s e r v o i r s t o r a g g snd which
would p r o v i d e g r e a t e r r e s t r i c t i o n s o n r e s e r v o i r r e l e a s e rates t o p r e v e n t
f l o o d i n g of l a n d s a l o n g t h e lower S o u r i s River,
I n view of t h e s e concerns, and t o p e r m i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e b e s t
c o u r s e of a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s of t h e study o b j e c t i v e s , p o s t a u t h o r i z a t i o n
s t u d i e s were made of a l l p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
Alternatives evaluated
(shorn on f i g u r e 3) i n c l u d e d :
No a c t i o n .
Floodplain evacuation.
Flood d i v e r s i o n channels.
Flood d i v e r s i o n t u n n e l s .
Flood b a r r i e r s and c h a n n e l improveinents.
Flood s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r s .
c
.
,
Figure 3
I n 1972, c o n c u r r e n t w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s f o r t h e B u r l i n g t o n
Dam, t h e Corps of Engineers i n c r e a s e d t h e d e s i g n c a p a c i t y of t h e Minot
channel t o 5,000 c f s and undertook i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n i n advance of
reservoir feature.
the
The Minot c h a n n e l was completed in 1978.
*,
\
I n 1977 t h e a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s o n t h e B u r l i n g t o n Dam w e r e completed.
and r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n t h e p r o j e c t makeup.
The r e s u l t .
of t h e r e f o r m u l a t i o n was t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t which i s d e f i n e d by t h e
f o l l o w i n g items (shown on f i g u r e 4):
B u r l i n g t o n Dam and R e s e r v o i r .
Des Lacs D i v e r s i o n .
o Lake D a r l i n g Darn m o d i f i c a t i o n s .
a Other N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e R e f u g e - s t r u c t u r e m o d i f i c a t i o n s .
All f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e s t o B u r l i n g t o n i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n w i l l mean t h e s e
i t ems.
The p r o j e c t , a s c u r r e n t l y f o r m u l a t e d , and t h e primary d e p a r t u r e s
from t h e a u t h o r i z e d p r o j e c t a r e as shown on f i g u r e 5.
Two o f t h e most
i m p o r t a n t changes i n t h e p r o j e c t w e r e a n i n c r e a s e d u s e o f Lake D a r l i n g
f o r f l o o d s t o r a g e w i t h a c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e c r e a s e i n t h e u s e of B u r l i n g t o n
f o r s m a l l e r f l o o d s , and t h e u s e of B u r l i n g t o n a s a d r y dam.
A d r y dam
means t h a t no c o n s e r v a t i o n p o o l would b e maintained behind t h e s t r u c t u r e
and any f l o o d w a t e r s would b e r e l e a s e d as r a p i d l y as p o s s i b l e dependent
upon downstream concerns.
T h e r e f o r e , the o p e r a t i o n p l a n for t h i s t y p e -
of s t r u c t u r e becomes very important.
m
The g e n e r a l o p e r a t i n g p l a n i s based on c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n
of t h e Lake D a r l i n g and B u r l i n g t o n R e s e r v o i r s w i t h t h e *flow from t h e
u n c o n t r o l l e d d r a i n a g e a r e a t o p r e v e n t d i s c h a r g e a t t h e Minot c o n t r o l
gage from exceeding 5,000 c f s .
T h i s p l a n of o p e r a t i o n was determined
from t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and o b j e c t i v e s (shorm on f i g u r e 6):
a.
P r o v i d e maximum downstream f l o o d p r o t e c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
environmental and f i s h and w i l d l i f e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e
s t o r a g e areas.
/
'
.
B
*
.
0
..
Figure 4
,
BURLINGTON PROJECT AND DEPARTURES FROM AUTHOXIZED PLAN
AUTHORIZED
BURLINGTON
BURLINGTON
PROPOSED
RIVER MILE 396.5
RIVER MILE 400.8
1TE.f
DEPARTURE
BVRLTSGTON DAY EKBAXICMENT
LOCAT IOX
ADJUSTME~T I N RIVER STATIOAIIG AXXI RELO-
CATED UPSTRELY TO AVOID ADVERSE FOU?3ATIOX OTD SEEPAGE PROBLMS.
:
4 , 1 2 5 FEET
3,685 FEET
DECREASE DUE TO NEW DAMSITE
DESICK FLOOD POOL ELEVATION
1622.2
1620
TO AVOID IhXlNDATION OF CANNIIAN LAXDS.
FLOOD COSTROL STORAGE
6 3 7 , 0 0 0 ACRE-FEET
6 3 3 , 0 0 0 ACRE-FEET
DECREASE I N DESIGN FLOOD POOL ELEVATIOX.
N E E O D OF OPEUTION FOR
RELEASE RATE AT
RELEASE RATE AT
MODIFIED TO UTILIZE FULL CRASSEL DESICX
..
ESEXYOIR
< ~ O O - Y W R FLOOD
.
.
'
MINOT
-'2 , 3 0 0
,,CFS CONSTANT
PlINOT
- 5,000
CPS WIPW I N
CAPACITY AT MINOT AND TO AVOID .ISDVEilSE
.
SPRING, 500 CFS
. ENVIROhPIEh'TAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS BOTH
UPSTREAM AW DOWNSTREAM OF DMI.
MAXIFLW I N SUiQ1ER
DEGREE OF PROTECTION AT DESIGN FLOOD ;POOL ELEVATION
80 PERCENT OF
RIVER FLOOD
INCREASE RESULTS FRO11 A REVISION OF THE
STANDARD PROJECT
RESERVOIR -0PEIVITING .PLAN.
FLOOD ( I N EXCESS
DEGREE OF PROTECTION PROVIDED TO AFFOR9
OF A 1,000-YEAR
THE OCCUPANTS OF THE SOURIS RIVER FLOOD-
SOURIS RIVER FLOOD)PLAIN
GRWTERSECURITY
FLOODS.
-
ISCREASED
FROX SOURIS RIVER
.,
-
Figure 5
,, ,.-
RESERVOIR RECULhTION
OBJECTIVES :
A.
.
PROVIDE JlAXIt4t.i DOWNSTRJLIM FLOOD PROTECTION COKSISTENT
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND' FISH ANT, WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIOXS
I N THE STORACE ARMS.
B.
USE DURLINGTON DAMSTORACE AS Ih'lREQUEXTLY AS POSSIBLE.
'C.
ATI'EE.lPT "TOATTAIN ELEVATION 1,596.9 ABOVE LA=' DARLING
-
:D/\M%XEN 'SPRING-RUNOFF .IS GOtIPLETED.
. .
.(PI
b.
Use B u r l i n g t o n Dam s t o r a g e a s i n E r e q u e n t l y as p o s s i b l e . ,
c.
'
8
I
:$j
,
~ttern~
t ot a t t a i n e l e v 9 t i o n 1596.0 above Lake D a r l i n g D&
*
iT$
tb
when s p r i n g r u n o f f i s completed.
Attempt t o r e d u c e t h e flow a t l l i n o t t o 2,000 c f s by 1 0 May
d.
and t o 500 c f s by 20 May.
.:'
For midsummer r a i n s t o r i n r u l a f f s , f l o w t h r o u g h k i n o t should
e.
.."
n o t exceed 500 cis.
,
<;
.,:
,.
*
<-
$
,-
-
The g e n e r a l o p e r a t i o n p l a n c a n b e broken down i n t o t h r e e phases
.
-
I
*&
a
,
:.
I
a s f o l l o w s (shown on f i g u r e 7) :
o
P r e f l o o d Lake D a r l i n g s p r i n g drawdown phase.
o
S t o r a g e phase (maximum r e l e a s e p l a n ) .
o
R e s e r v o i r drawdown phase.
,
?
.,$
i '
i
$
. k c
.
8
3
+
.,
!
I
1
I
i
1
A l l f l o o d s l a r g e r t h a n about 2-percent frequency ?S the 50-year
-
'
ti
f l o o d w i l l r e q u i r e some s t o r a g e i n B u r l i n g t o n ~ e s e r v o i 'in
r order t o
p r e v e n t t h e f l o w from exceeding 5,000 c f s a t Minot.
1,
<
,
i
-
"(!
r t
'
I
+,
L *
,
:I
Lake D a r l i n g p o o l drawdown i s t h e f i r s t s t e p i n t h e o p e r a t i n g plan
:!
%
.
-
I
and h a s s i g n i f i c a n t importance because t h e e x t e n t of p o o l drawdown has a
I -
d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e amount of s t o r a g e a v a i l a b l e f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l .
The amount of drawdown is dependent upon t h e 30-day f o r y c a s t of spring
I
i:
snowmelt-runoff volume a t Sherwood, North Dakota, t h e r a t e o f drawdown,
.,.
..
and t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r drawdown between 1 March and s p r i n g i c e breakup.
'3
1
The second phase i s s t o r a g e , and the maximum r e l e a s e s from the Lake
Darling-Burlington Reservoir are determined by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of l o c a l
,*
+\
.I{
i n f l o w between B u r l i n g t o n and Minot.
I
<L
For f l o o d s h a v i n g a less f r e q u e n t chance of o c c u r r e n c e t h a n 4 percent o r a 25-year
f r e q u e n c y a t Sherwood, the Lake D a r l i n g R e s e r v o i r would
be o p e r a t e d t o i n s u r e a peak flow no l a r g e r t h a n 5,000 c f s a t Hinot.
.
, -
'.
. . .
,,.
..
*'
I . .
Li
. ..
A. T h 6. --preflood drav~dcav~n
- phase
.
,
o r La!cs Darling.
For f l o o d s having a more f r e q u e n t chance of o c c u r r e n c e t h a n ' 4
p e r c e n t o r a 25-year frequency a t Sherwood, Lake D a r l i n g Reservoir
would b e o p e r a t e d t o i n s u r e a Minot flow less t h a n 5,000 c f s .
l l e r e s e r v o i r emptying p h a s e i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t of t h e t h r e e
phases o f o p e r a t i o n .
R e l e a s e s from t h e r e s e r v o i r w i l l b e a d j u s t e d so
t h a t t h e downstream flow a t Minot d o e s n o t exceed 5,000 c f s a f t e r May
15 and 500 c f s a f t e r May 20.
T h i s w i l l p r o v i d e t i m e f o r downstream
f a r m e r s t o move i n t o t h e i r f i e l d s f o r cropping purposes f o l l o w i n g t h e
high releases.
I n g e n e r a l , t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t w i l l be as
f o l l o w s (based on s t r u c t u r e s shown on f i g u r e 8):
The Des Lacs D i v e r s i o n t o t h e ' S o u r i s b e g i n s when t h e f l o w
r e a c h e s 1,400 c f s .
As t h e flow i n c r e a s e s i n t h e Des Lacs, a
c o r r e s p o n d i n g amount of w a t e r i s d i v e r t e d t o t h e S o u r i s .
At
a flow of ,8,500 c f s , 4,500 c f s would p a s s t o t h e S o u r i s behind
B u r l i n g t o n Dam and 4,000 c f s would c o n t i n u e down t h e Des Lacs.
.
T h i s 4,000 c f s f i g u r e i s based on t h e p r e m i s e s t h a t a n a d d i t i o n a l
.
1,000 c f s would b e added t o t h e S o u r i s downstream o£ the Burlingt o n 'and Des Lacs Dams.
.,
behind
The 4,500 c f s would b e impounded
t h e B u r l i n g t o n Dam.
Lake D a r l i n g i s t h e primary c o n t r o l on a l l f l o o d s .
The f i r s t
s t e p is t o draw down t h e Lake D a r l i n g p o o l a s p e c i f i e d amount
p r i o r t o t h e flood runoff.
A s t h e r u n o f f o c c u r s , f l o w s are
p.assed downstream w i t h i n t h e maximum 5,000 c f s range.
When
needed t o s t a y w i t h i n t h e r a n g e , s t o r a g e w i l l occur i n Lake
D a r l i n g u n t i l t h e e l e v a t i o n of 1602, a t which time w a t e r w i l l
flow o v e r t h e s p i l l w a y and b e s t o r e d behind t h e B u r l i n g t o n Dam.
The frequency of t h i s o c c u r r e n c e i s about once -i n. 50 y e a r s (2
percent).
.
BURLINGTON
DLM
.,q
e
Water w i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e s t o r e d b e h i n d E u r l i n g t o n i f needed
t o r e t a i n t h e 5 , 0 0 0 cf s 'flow.
.
*${
=
a *
I f r u n o f f c o n t i n u e s , t h e water
>
t
,,,
l e v e l b e h i n d B u r l i n g t o n w i l l r i s e u n t i l e l e v a t i o n 1602 when
%
ir
8
D a r l i n g a n d B u r l i n g t o n w i l l become o n e p o o l .
<:.
,
The f r e q u e n c y of
o c c u r r e n c e o n t h i s o n e p o o l l e v e l i s a b o u t 1 i n 1 0 0 y e a r s (1
,:I<-
'
I A'
-'
:I
' f
percent).
..
e
As a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e i s n e e d e d , t h e p o o l l e v e l would c o n t i n u e
i
.
1
t o rise.
The d e s i g n p o o l l e v e l i s 1620.
A t t h i s elevation,
w a t e r would b e impounded t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary.
Based
upon p a s t r e c o r d s , i f t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t w e r e i n p l a c e , t h e
l e v e l o f 1 6 2 0 would n o t y e t h a v e b e e n r e a c h e d .
I
.
2
-t
,>
Any p o o l above 1602 would b e d ~ a w ndown a t t h e 5,000 c f s r a t e
u n t i l t h e l e v e l b e h i n d D a r l i n g r e a c h e d 1 5 9 6 . . At t h i s e l e v a t i o n ,
Lake D a r l i n g would b e h e l d s t a b l e and a l l w a t e r b e h i n d B u r l i n g t o n
would b e r e l e a s e d u n t i l d r y .
1Y
,
.
IMPACTS ON CANADA O F OPERATION
O F THE RURLINGTON P R O J E C T
?
'
-
L1
.
''G.,a./i
-
PART I11
/
I
1
z
-
METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS
)$
+<
.4:k2
,
$$
<+
2
. , .rl
'-*
Before describing the methodology used
.
in the
e
study \
P
I,
,-
and the impacts anticipated from the project, it is important i ,.
*
to nDte an important source of inionnation other than those'.
. .
!.e '1
normally available for a study of this type'Guch as ate;' . .! .
,,
Survey of Canada and United States Geological 5uryky Flow . . id .
*
'
Records,
.
r
.I
s
b?
?
I
;P
"',j
$
(%'
>
' < +
> "
#
!. z3
\ l A
<. ,
2
: xfj
'
-
d$
,<..'
1,
: :,
'
'.&
,
,
<b\$
,
&4
<tx
'
A comprehensive basin study of the Canadia~portion .
of the basin was underway in Canada concurrently with the ~oard's
studies. This study is the most detailed and up to date work
on the Canadian portion of the basinsto date, and information
frbm it was utilized heavily by the Board. In particular, an
unconventional but effective integrated methodology for the
evaluation of physical and economic impacts of flooding in
Canada that was developed for the Souris River Basin Study was
utilized for the Board's work.
..,F
'38
;P
,.%
,PV
I..
'
,
"
&
i
:J
,
r
2
6
7'
'
The methodology utilized by the Board in evaluating .
some of the impacts of project operation was greatly influenced
by the location of the Burlington project relative to some of .
the major tributaries that influence flooding on the Souris
River. As previously noted, Burlington Dam would be located
upstream q f Minot approximately 261 miles upstream of the
near the
. , Manitoba border and project
Westhope gauging station
.,
operntfione
is based on existing and anticipated flow; at the
~he~-,r{od
gauging station at the
border.,*
.
+ ..
I
.
aska at chew an
a*
-
1
Under existing conditions, flood flows at Westhope
+
1
are more sensitive to inflows From major tributaries
between
......
,
Minot and Westhope than to flows entering North Dakota from'. ,'f
Saskatchewan.
,,
(Figures 1 and 2) As an example, $n a year weere
I
%
.
-
I
I %
*
I
L
t I
iil
;i
,'>,
.
.' .
'
.
\
j.
.
*
A
*
' _
'r
*
,I
L
I
'+
,
i
I,
:
'.
' (
<.:
.
.
,,,
,,
..
.
-
.,
.
.. ..
4
, -
4
..
*
.
.
.
.> ' .. .
.. ,.
- 1
; ::
'
,
.
.. .
.:.,.
/
::,
,
'..
,
. .
2
tributary inflows are relatively low, the flood
>. .
peaks
. .,.,*, upstieth'
..
...,.. ;
*.,
.
of Minot can be identified at Westhope after allo&g~cesforitig~
.
,,. .~. .
, . . .
,
.
. .
. ..
.
'
,
;
.
.
:
'
.
"
.
.
:
.
,
.
'
of travel, increase in volume and attenuation are hade.
_:,
:
.C.
~
... .
,
.,,
s
,;,
'.
I
.
, :
,.
,
t
.
..
.
3.
,
. . ... . .+
.
,
,
* .
.
.,.
,.I
.,? . '. ; . :.
8
.
.,"a
.T.,
...
'
"
.. .
<!i
.r . ,:
. ,:
s,!
.. ,
,,,.
r.
.ir
. .a
5;
i;
.f+
;
?-
7
On the other hand, when tributary inflows are
..
relatively high, the hydrograph at Westhope
Z
bears little
resemblance to the hydrograph upstream of Minot and in fact,
peak flows may occur at the same time or prior to the upstream
peaks.
"
A
When operation of the Burlington project is superimposed
on the upstream hydrograph, the impact at Westhope can be quite
different. (Figures 3 and 4) For example, in a year with
relatively low tributary inflow, the operation of Burlington
might reduce the peak flow with a minor increase in low flows
and thus be beneficial to areas downstream of Westhope. In
another year with exactly the same upstream conditions, and
relatively high tributary inflows, the operation of Burlington
might have no effect on the peak at Westhope and might cause
both relief and damaging flooding at different times and at
different elevations during the period when the norpal Westhope
flaod would be recedincj. In this instance, Burlington operation
would have'an adverse effect on areas downstream of Westhope.
<
I
h
To assess this'variable impact at Westhope, a~?dhence
1.
.'2
'f
.I
in qanitoba, an unconventional but effective method was used
to asseqs flood damages in Manitoba. (Figure 5)
I) It was assumed that the 41 years from 1936 to
1976 represented the range of flow events
I'
that
would occur in the Souris Basin, up to the 1 in
100 event.
2) Using historical information, the flood damages
under actual flow conditions and the 1975 level
of development, were computed for each of the
41 years in Manitoba.
,
\t
C
?:
;-.I"
,.
1
,4,
'
I
*
!':
,'.-<
'*$?
3 "
JI"
r
,.
1'
1
.
.
<:
THAT 41 YEARS FROM D36 TO 1976
REPRESENTED THE
RANGE OF EVENT§ UP TO
THE I IN I00 EVENT THAT WOULD
.
OCCUR IN
THE SOURIS BASIN.
I
I. A S S U M E D
>
i?
rk
.I
1
f
h7
I,.
I
.
a ,
\r'
2. COMPUTED
THE
ACTUAL
,
OF
IN EACH
DAMAGES
41 YEARS.
.(
3.BURhIMGTON VlOUbD
OF THE lbl YEAWS.
OQERaTEO IN
HbVE
La. DAMAGES
WECOMPUT ED FOR
IN EACH OF THE 18 YEARS.
5. TOTAL DAMAGES
(
WITHOUT
CHANGED
18 OUT
CONDlTlOOadS
BURLINGTON
41
:I
A
6
$it.
TOTAL DAMAGES
t
WITH
.
.
/
BURLINGTOP4
.
,
.,
4!
,
) u
1
1.1
?
3 .
1:
1 .
6
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
,
INCREASE., OR
I
,
DECREASE
IN
+ ,
2
. .
Figure 5
. .
..
Under t h e o p e r a t i n g p l a n , tQe B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t ,
i f it had been ' i n p l a c e , would have o p e r a t e d
' '
, .
.
1 8 of t h e 4 1 y e a r s .
Through flow r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s , t h e change
i n f l o w s i n Manitoba f o r e a c h o f t h e 1 8 years .
*
w a s d e t e r m i n e d , and t d t a l damages f o r e a c h of
t h o s e y e a r s were recomputed.
The t o t a l damages f o r a l l o f t h e 4 1 y e a r s w i t h o u t *
B
- u r l i n q- t o n and f o r a l l of t h e 4 5 y e a r s w i t h
in
8'
*t-
r
9
~ u r l i n g t o nassumed t o be o p i r a t i n g w e r e e a c h
d i v i d e d by 4 1 and t h e d i f f e r e n c e provided t h e
a v e r a q- e a n n u a l i n c r e a s e ( o r d e c r e a s e ) i n damages
from o p e r a t i o n of t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r q j e c t .
As I have n o t e d , t h e impact of t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t
It i s
c o u l d be e i t h e r p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e i n any g i v e n y e a r .
a l s o a p p a r e n t t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e impact of t h e p r o j e c t i s
i n c r e m e n t a l t o t h e f l o o d damage ' t h a t O C C ~ normglly,
S , ,
t'he a r e a
o f impact c a n v a r y w i d e l y from y e a r t o y e a r and, i n f a c t , one
area c o u l d r e c e i v e a b e n e f i t w h i l e a n o t h e r was s u f f e r i n g damages
from t h e p r o j e c t w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e of a s i n g l q f l o o d e v e n t . .
I t was, t h e r e f o r e , i p p o r t a n t to t r y and d(.e v, .e l o p v a l u e s f ~ t hr e
economic impact of t h e p r o j e c t t h a t would r e f l e c g ' t h e impact
on a n i n d i v i d u a l l a n d h o l d e r o v e r t h e 4 1 y e a r p e r i o d . T h i s w a s
done by b r e a k i n g t h e valley i n Manitoba down i, n, t o f i v e r e a c h e s
t h a t c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e d i f f e r e n t p h y s i c a l c h a f a c t e r i s t i ~ sof
t h e v a l l e y , and b r e a k i n g e a c h reach down
, IS $
. npf h r e e e l e v a t i oj, n '
bands t h a t r e f l b c t i d t h e l a n d h o l d i n g p a t t e r n s on t h e v a l l e y
:
s l. o p. e s ,
$ a \
,
5
:
5
I
q
+ - - h
I
?
lb
I
I
i
his r e a c h map i s F i g u r e 2 on Page 4 1 of t h e r e p o r t .
-
-
i ,
(F'igurem6 ) The f i r s t r e a c h
t h e Westhope Reach
i s approxim a t e l y 6 m i l e s i n l e n g t h and c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a low channel
c a p a c i t y of between 150 and 500 ~ f ws i t h < a broad f l a t f l o o d
,??
.1
8
I
_
4
1
.
I
1%
a
ig;
p l a i n and m o d e r a t e l y s l o p i n g v a l l e y w a l l s .
r e a c h i s p r i m a r i l y p a s t u r e o n t h e f l o o d p l a i n and s l o p e s .
-
.
Land u s e i n t h e
The
-
is approximately
8 m i l e s l o n g w i t h good c h a n n e l c a p a c i t y o f from 500 t o 1 , 4 5 0 c f s
second reach
t h e P e n i n s u l a B r i d g e Reach
w i t h a narrow f l o o d p l a i n and s t e e p banks.
Land u s e i n t h e
r e a c h i s p r i m a r i l y p a s t u r e o n t h e f l o o d p l a i n and l o w e r s l o p e s
a n d cereal c r o p s o n t h e u p p e r s l o p e s .
The Melita Reach h a s a
wide f l o o d p r a i n over i t s 8 m i l e s w i t h a shallow v a l l e y w i t h
Channel c a p a c i t y i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 , 3 0 0 c f s .
s t e e p slopes.
Land u s e i n t h e f l o o d p l a i n i s mixed c r o p s and p a s t u r e , a n d
i s p a s t u r e on t h e v a l l e y s l o p e s .
The n i n e m i l e L a u d e r Reach
has a c h a n n e l c a p a c i t y of 1 , 1 0 0 cfs w i t h a b r o a d f l o o d p l a i n a n d
gently sloping valley walls.
'production.
Land u s e i s p r i m a r i l y c r o p
The H a r t n e y Reach i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5, m i l e s l o n g
a n d h a s a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c h a n n e l c a p a c i t y of 1 , 7 0 0 c f s .
The
v a l l e y i s n a r r o w a n d d e e p w i t h s t e e p s i d e s and l a n d u s e i s
g e n e r a l l y c o n f i n e d t o c r o p p r o d u c t i o n a t w i d e r p o i n t s on t h e
v a l l e y bottom.
As n o t e d ,
e a c h r e a c h w a s b r o k e n down i n t o t h r e e
( ~ i ~ u r7e) ' The l o w e r
band g e n e r a l l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e f l o o d p l a i n area, t h e m i d d l e
band t o t h e l o w e r v a l l e y slopes and t h e u p p e r band t o ' t h e u p p e r
The i m p a c t i n a n y o n e band i n any o n e r e a c h
valley slopes.
r e f l e c t s t h e t y p e and l e v e l of i m p a c t that a n i n d i v i d u a l
l a n d o w n e r i n t h a t r e a c h would e x p e r i e n c e .
e l e v a t i o n b a n d s a s shown i n t h e s k e t c h .
i
The methodology I have j u s t d e s c r i b e d a p p l i e s t o
a g r i c u l t u r a l i m p a c t s i n Manitoba. Urban i m p a c t s i n M a n i t o b a
d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e r e a c h and band approach,and
impacts i n
S a s k a t c h e w a n were d e r i v e d i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l f a s h i o n .
A
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s e m e t h o d o l o g i e s i s c o n t a i n e d i n the r e p o r t ,
BANDS
SECT ION
.
~ i c j u r e7
'
.
...
.
.
.
,
;.
,
.
.
.
.,
. .:.. . . .
.
.
PLAN
. .
.
. . . .
. . .. . . ..
.
. . .. . .
:.
...
.
.
.
.. .
. . .
..:..:........ . - ...-. L.. .. .. . .. ._. _. .. .. _. .. .. .. .. .. _. .. .. . .. .^,..
_ . . . .. . , . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. . .. . -.
. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. . .. . . . .. .
.. .- - , .... . . .
. .. . . .
. . . .....
.
.
.
.
.
. . . ...
. . . . - . . .. .,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
"
....,.- ... .. .
..:.. .?,.'!" '...<'...I":.':
. -::
. . . . . .. ,...
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
_
.o
."'"'::.
\
.
,
',$
. * ,.
/i
-
12
q
-
.
.$:!
."
1,
$8- ,F
.-&I
F,
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
Saskatchewan
Physical impact in Saskatchewan would be caused by
backwater from the Burlington Reservoir. The diagram (Figure 8)
represents thq backwater effect on Saskatchewan for various
, .
probabilities at Sherwood. As shown, about once in every 100
years the reservoir pool could cause a backwater effect in
Saskatchewan. This effect would, however, be confined to the
river channel up to elevation 1,623,which is the elevation of the
valley flats at the boundary and the elevation where significant
flood damage would start. As the diagram indicates, the probability
of such an occurance is less than once in 1,000 years and the
incremental effect of Burlington would be very small because of
the large increase in backwater due to existing conditions.
*
L
Manitoba
As I indicated previously, economic impacts in Manitoba
were determined with the impact bn individuals in mind. It is
useful, however, to look at the annual physical impact on
agricultural and urban areas as a whole to keep the economic
impacts in perspective. Table 13 on Page 55 of the report
describes the total physical incremental impact on agricultural
flooding in Manitoba in those 18 years in which Burlington would
have operated. The figure displayed on the screen (Figure 9)
shows the maximum incremental negative and positive impacts in
those years in which they would have occurred. The table shows
that, out of the 18 years, there would have been less total
flooding in nine years and more total flooding in the other nine
years. As displayed on the screen, in 1971, under historic
conditions 2,180 acres were flooded. If Burlington had been
operating, 6,459 acres would have been flooded. The in~pactof
Burlington in 1971 then would have been the flooding of 4,279
additional acres of agricultural land. In 1950, 8,410 acres
..
J
Dl SCWRRGE lid C. F.S.
-
CURVES SOURIS RIVER NEAR 9kJERW000, M O R T H DAKOT&
BURLINGTON POOL ELEVATION
DISCHARGE P R O C A D l L l T Y
RAT I M G
is\
----
-
..-I
L
.
.
. . . .., .
. .. .
.,,
,
* ..
, ..: ,. ".
had been operating, p n l y " ,111
~
$i:"":
r 77:: .
...'c .jg,
;,.!:*
were f l o o d e d . I f ~ u r l i n g t o n
. . . . . . . . . . .,,<'r
:,..
. . . . -.. . . ... . . . .
c.:,;
. . . .,:,
. . . :..,
. ."
acres would have been floode6I .an@
. .,;>
3. .
$per.atign':~o$d
a,!... . :I;.'. ,'. . .;..'
.:
.i;.
...
,%:!.
.
,.;
+ .::,.,
.
,s:c
,. . ';, ....;-..
.., .-..%
r n n
-,..racz
..ti,.
.-.
.......... . ;
.
p r e v e n t e d t h e f l o o d i n g of 2.2~3 ac&=-.
.;r
. .. . :>,:\ .; . ,,..:,,.:,'
, :.I<! *'
d,
?
, ..
- cl:. , ,
,
. :,
'+
!, .
(
"
,
..k"
.,
,
:
..
,-,..'.
: . i t
.;
;
, . + I A.
,i,.
.
..,,
,.
,
,..?~'.'.
8,
,I..Y
,
. ? . . . . .
IT!*
1
I
4
L
--
.<
... . . .c;;",,. .
,'.
'1
.
i.,,'',..
c
A
"
,
<'f-
.i.
.
_?',
1
i
I
:>
"
.,C,..;
4",,
>
?
,.I
1i
i ,
,iI'
I+
With r e s p e c t t o urban
i m p a c t s ,. t h e . towns
*. ..-.
og:
$ $ l * ~ a ; ~ , "s;' +
i
' * . ,y.
x
J
+
I
i,-
,
,$.-t
,6
s o u r i s and Wawanesa e x p e r i e n p e d f l o o d i n g i n 10%
- r of $helye"s
- ..
I;I.
nJ
which B u r l i n g t o n w01,hd have operated..
. -:T"
~.. h,:, h s i c, .~i l
m,p a,. $,:c t o f. : '"i;!;
.
,.
o p e r a t i o n of t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t i s shown f o r e a c h of the:$ ;,, Y j ; .
r L
in
-
s,Fv
1
l
.I.-
.$
I
;
*A
/
,;,
a?.
<
,
t
;
o
$
1 8 y e a r s i n T a b l e 1 4 on Page 57 of t h e r e p o r t .
he i n f 0 r i h a t i o n : f I+ .f ~ ' . ~5
d i s p l a y e d on t h e s c r e e n ( F i g u r e 10) i s e x $ r a c t e d from t h e , table., z.-,
t:~j,l
. , c
;
:.-i . $
'
i
2 :
<
.
<
.
3
I
rl.
An e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n som,e
'
o f t h e y e a r s , w i t h o r w i t h o u t B u r l i n g t o n , f l o o d i p g would n o t
have r e a c h e d t h e t h r e s h o l d e l e v a t i o n o r p o i n t of fi.rst damage.
Under
I
h i s t o r i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , M e l i t a e x p e r i e n c e d f l o o d damage
most f r e q u e n t l y ( i n 11 of t h e 1 8 y e a r s ) . S o u r i s and Wawanesa,
however, were o n l y damaged i n 1976. I f t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t ,
had been o p e r a t e d i n t h e s e y e a r s , it would have i n c r e a s e d
f l o o d i n g i n M e l i t a i n s i x y e a r s o u t of t h e 11 and d e c r e a s e d it
i n t h e o t h e r f i v e y e a r s . The maximum i n c r e a s e and d e c r e a s e ,
would be t h e same
0.5 f e e t i n 1970 and 1948, r e s p e c t i v e l y
In
1976, B u r l i n g t o n o p e r a t i o n s would have d e c r e a s e d f l o o d i n g by
:
0 . 1 f e e t i n S o u r i s and 0 . 5 f e e t i n Wawanesa.
7
1
-
,$
:$
1.'
L,
,
I
fy
d c
i
-
.
:., :
1
.I_
. i..
-,
p r o j e c t on -Srskatcheigt
,
,I
f.
e~t
. . . . pr:oj
, .,
..
.
..'
.
.
*
..
.
.
.
.
*.
L----
:<
. Ji . :,.
. . .F..
. :. .!.
.
:
.
.
.
. . . .
,
,
.
d
.
.I
f o r d e t e r m i n i n g p r e - ~ r S ? j e ~flows
t
P,,,ya
BURLINGTON D A M ON M A N I T O B A
2180 a c r e s
6 4 5 9 crcres
4275 more acres f l o o d e d
HISTORIC
MODIFIED
DIFFERENCE
8410 acres
HISTORIC
MODIFIED
DIFFERENCE
Figure 9
.
l
f<I
2299 f e w e r acres f l ~ o d e d
-
q;
.,<. ,
16 -
.I
3, %*t.
> W Y S I C A L IMPACTS O F BURLINGTObJ PROJECT
'a:
ON h4ANITOBA. U R B A N CENTRES
,
l
:
;
Frequency O f Damage In Years In Which
klf;
I
'
' i
Burl ington Would H a v e Operated
-
.'
"
%
I'
+
I1 Years Ou
SOURIS AND WAWA NESA - I Year Out Of 18 (1976)
I
(
.5
iry
3i
IT
Yi'
I m p a c t 05 Burlington Operation
IWELITA
-
-
Flooding increased !n 6 Years
Flooding Decreased in 5 Years
ldaximum Increase
-
0.5 ft.
Iln
.
$
.
1970
Maximum Decrease - 0.5 ff. 10 1948
SOURIS
P?AlPJANESA
- Flooding Decreased
- Flooding
By 0.1Pf. In 1976
Decreased By 0.5 Pf. In 1976
f
<
.I'
F i g u r e 10
,
'Iy
u
..
I
nrn wur-3
I I V I \ I * ~
5*L
.* ,( 3
.I
1
,
"
,
q 7
Pre - Project f l o w s in future y e a r s .
i)!sr 4
- Procedures -- pp. 47 a n d 48 and Appendix E . '
- Assumes d i f f e r e n t operating procedures
for Lake Darling.
I.
'
.
r!;;2
L
2. Project improvements t o J. Clark Salyer
w i l d l i f e refuge structures.
- Backwater studies
- Insignificant effect on levels and flows
- No future operating p l a n that is not
presently possible.
3. Combined
1948Floods at
Westhope 19691976-
-
impact of Burlington apd Garrison
High 'tri bu9ary inflow
.-
L o w tributary inflow Largest recorded event
- Garrison flo~ars insignificant.
Spring Flood
- LOWF l o w Months -
In most years. Burlington
effects terminated.
- L a r g e Floods (
,
I in 100) - Flow increase
of 20% in fall
months over
Burlington e f f e c t ?
.
alone.
. .
.
.
. ,..
I
,.
I
,
,
.L
,
'
.
Figure 11
,
... . . .
. . . . .
.. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
... - .
.
.
.
.
. - _ _-.
. . : - . . . . . . . .. .. ,
:..
- . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . -.
. - . . . ..-.. . . . .. .. . . . . .. -.. ....-....
. . .. ..- .. . .. . . . . . . ;... .
. . . . . .
.
-.
. . . .- .
. .
.......
................
-. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . - .. - . . . . . .. . - .
., -. . . . ..*. .........
. . .-.
. _ . . . . . . -. . . . . . . .....
. ....-.,
..
- ,
.
. . . . . . .
-.
.
-
_ -
.
,-;.,.
,
,.,
.
;l
a
.
.
..
,
.
!:
.
.
. %,.
,,
.
.
.
.
"
.i .
,
.
:
% .
.
:-;,
.. t r
:
' ..".
..., . ;.&*,';
13:
-"
:@
.:.$kg
7 .
,
.
8,:'
*
I
.
.'.,h;
. : .
.
.
.
(2
!
. &..
;:.!:;:?
major limiting assumption in the procedures is.. that
.. .
Lake.Dar1i.g
. ..
. .
.
':'p
will be operated by the United States Fish and Wildlige
'Service
.. ,
.
. . .
i n a different fashion in the future than it has 'in
the3''pas<
::.,,
.
+.
. ' ..._
.
because of the increased operating flexibility
. .
acdorded 'by'the
.
.*.
'C;
..
.
.!. . ' . ...
existing channel improvements at Minot.
( ., , , . ' _
$
. ,rg
..
.,
'.
,
.$
,. . .. ,!$$
;.
. .,*, s
._
*..
,
...
.
.3
:h::
,
,
$;
.'
.:t..:
,
The second question'relates to the 'impact of hroject
improvements to the J. Clark Salyer wildlife Refuge strpctures'.
These improvements include increases in dyke height and stability
and rehabilitation and improvements to the spillway structures.
The Board conducted studies of backwater and flow conditions
with the improvements assumed to be in place and observed that
the improvements would have an insignificant effect on levels
and flows and would not permit the adoption of any operating
plan that is not already possible.
.
.. -
zf
.
..
1'1
f
?j
.\
Finally, the Board assessed the combined impact of
operation of the Burlington project and return flows from the
.';
Garrison project. This impact was assessed for each of three
years. In 1948, the flood at Westhope had a high tributary inflow.
In 1969, the flood at Westhope was caused by flows which, for
the most part, originated upstream of Minot. The flood at Westhope
in 1976 was the largest recorded in the 41 year period examined.
It was observed that, in most flood years, the spring Garrison
?r
flows wogld be negligible relative to the spring flood flows.
Also, in most flood years, Burlington effects would have
'\
terminated prior to those $ o w flow months where the Garrison
,.. , 8,
.,;
flows
z
.would become significant. In years of large floods (1 in
"$
+.:;3
100 events)
where Burlington would'operate into the fall months,
.
' ,' ".$<
.' - jit
the combined effect would increase flows by about 20 percent
,
over t h o s ~from Burlington alone.
:4j
I %
1,
I
1
14
Lt:
t
4
(
I
a
I
.'>i
..
. .
.
:;.,
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
....."a
.,
. .. .. ... .. .. . . ,
.
%
, .
.
,
.
.:: :j
~.
,,
.: ::.u . ,
.
:
. '. .L..,. .. . . . .:,.
3s
:.
.!$$$
A+".'%,
,I.>
.
.. .._.
. .. . ,. .. . .
. .
The p h y s i c a l impact of t h e B u r l i n g t o n p r o j e c t i n
I
:
'I
Saskatchewan would be r a r e and r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e r i v e r channel.,?j
',
A c c o r d i n g l y , no a s s e s s m e n t of economic impact on Saskatchewan
7
w a s c a r r i e d out.
,-*
.
?:
1
A s p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , economic i m p a c t s on Manitoba
<.
!
r
I
w e r e broken-down t o be i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e impact t h a t might b e
e x p e c t e d by an i n d i v i d u a l r u r a l landowner o r u r b a n community.
(Figure 12)
I m p a c t s were t h e n a g g r e g a t e d i n v a r i o u s ways t o
p r o v i d e i n d i c a t i o n s of o v e r a l l impact.
I n both i n d i v i d u a l and
3
-6
a g g r e g a t e form, i m p a c t s were d e s c r i b e d a s i n c r e a s e s i n damages
w i t h d e c r e a s e s ignored o r a s n e t impacts considering both
i n c r e a s e s and d e c r e a s e s i n damages.
."
I n t h e Board's r e p o r t ,
T a b l e 1 6 on Page 60 d e t a i l s t h e d e c r e a s e s and i n c r e a s e s i n damages
and t h e n e t impact f o r e a c h a g r i c u l t u r a l band and u r b a n community.
theh -$.
screen,
Some of t h e more p e r t i n e n t d a t q i s d i s p l a y e d
,. on
a l l c a s e s , c o s t s a r e e x p r e s s e d i n 1975 Canadian d o l l a r s .
Ip
I f we c o n s i d e r d e c r e a s e s o n l y , t h e a v e r a g e annual
i n d i v i d u a l d e c r e a s e s r a n g e from $2 t o $2,145 i n r u r a l areas and
from $98 t o $714 i n t h e t h r e e u r b a n communities, and t h e t o t a l
a v e r a g e a n n u a l d e c r e a s e i s $11,228.
( F i g u r e 1 3 ) I f we c o n s i d e r
increases o n l y , average a n n u a l individual increases
r a n g e from
, 0 t o $1,540 i n r u r a l a r e a s and from 0
t o $886 i n ' t h e three u r b a n
communities and t h e t o t a l a v e r a g e a n n u a l i n c g e a s e i s $5,872.
'!
C o n s i d e r i n g t h e n e t i m p a c t , w e see t h a t a v e r a g e a n n u a l
d e c r e a s e s r a n g i n g between $2 and $1,637 would o c c u r i n 1 2 o u t o f
t h e 15 r u r a l a r e a s .
The r e m a i n i n g t h r e e r u r a l a r e a s would
r e c e i v e n e t a v e r a g e a n n u a l d e c r e a s e s of $123, $53 and $12.
The
n e t i m p a c t on t h e urban community o f M e l i t a would be a n . i n c r e a s e
i n a v e r a g e a n n u a l damage o f $152 and i n S o u r i s a n d Wawanesa
I n total, the
would be n d e r r e a s e o f $ 9 8 and $122, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
n e t e f f e c t would be a d e c r e a s e of $5,356 i n a v e r a g e a n n u a l damage.
. ECONOhAIC IMPACTS - M A N I T O B A
.*
:.
:onsidering Decreases Only :
- Averaga annual individual decreases range Prom
$ 2.08 t o $2145.00 in rural areqs and f r o m
$ 98.00 to $ 714.00 in the three yrban cornrnuni9ies.
Total average annual decrease - ijb 11,228.00
-
'
:onsidering Increases Only :
- Awerugs annual individual increases range from
0.00 to $1540.00 in Pural areas a n d from
8 0.00 to $$866.00in the three urban communities.
- Total average annual increase - 8 5,872.00
'
ivet impacts :
- Dacreases from
$2.00 Po f) 1637.00 in 12 out
of 15 vupal areas.
- lncrsases o f $[29.00, $53.00 and
# 12.00 in
the remaining three r u m l areas.
- MELITA -
Increase o f
8 ~52.00
- GYAWANESA - Decrease of
$122.00
J
- In Total :
.
Decreoss of $5356.00 in gverocsa
annual darnoges.
U
.,>.
,
.
*
I
,;:
.
" U N QU
~. E" E N VIROM M ENTAL I M,PACTS
','.."'.;:
.
. . .
.: L n y . ,,
<:
.
,., .
:.
.,
\
..,
'
!,,,*
,
,
!'
'
.'.
&
I..).
,I
,
,
,
.............
, : , ,"t
, ,,
.<$. .:
.
.
., . .
Wildlife (other than wate
War,e and end-angered sp ecie s.'
Waf e i quality
.
.
,
:
. . .. .-. ,' .i. ..; F.;!
"
,%
;.;;
-4
, . '; ,.
,
..
.
'
-'
.
,
I
. .. .
. . . . . .
.
. . ; . . . . . . . . ..
-,.
.:
.
,
-
6 -
il'
.
< .
b\
"NONUNIQUE" IMPACT
5i
'.
-
.
'
q:+;%$
.
' 7 C'
p
@
.. \:
,
:' +'..$
Operation of Burlington , along with other ' 4
.q
.
factors, could encourage carp to migrate
J
).
i
"
4
;
Y
from the Assini boine River to the Souris River. +
- Carp first observed in Assiniboine R i v e r
in 1948- currently, present below \iVa~vanesa Dam
- Barriers - Wawanesa
Dam -- physical
Low dissolved oxygen J
- IncrernentaI improvement could permit
success 4I uI. migration.
- IncremenfaI improvement by :
- Improved sewage treatment
- Changes in f lovj regiemq
- Burl ington project operation
- Potentially
F i g u r e 15
,C
.
. .
. .,
I:
A
$
i
.$
I
t
'"1
': (
,$
.
,$F
.
$1
*,l
.'f:
i
.J
h
".
*
''i
serious impact on Canadian
**
L
i
5
'
I
:
:n
4
p r o j e c t , a l o n g w i t h o r i n a d d i t i o n t o , ongoing improvements i n
t
,$!YY&
&
sewage t r e a t m e n t and changes i n f l a w regime c o u l d b r i n g a b o u t
s u c h an i n c r e m e n t a l improvement.
I f carp could successfully
; o v e r w i n t e r and m u l t i p l y i n t h e S o u r i s R i v e r , t h e y would have
-1 11
,$d
:q
,.:,
.,
,.$.%'
;::t
$f
>@'
a s e r i o u s impact on Canadian w a t e r f o w l t h r o u g h a complex c h a i n
..
of events.
,.,
I f c a r p c r o s s e d t h e b a r r i e r a t t h e Wawanesa Dam and
c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e r i v e r upstream of t h e dam were s u c h t h a t t h e y
.
would r e a c h p o t e n t i a l o v e r w i n t e r i n g a r e a s s u c h a s Oak Lake or
p o o l s u p s t r e a i 'of t h e J. C l a r k S a l y e r W i l d l i f e Refuge, s u f f i c i e n t
p o p u l a t i o n s c o u l d b u i l d up t o s e r i o u s l y damage a q u a t i c v e g e t a t i o n
L
i n t h e Des L a c s , Upper S o u r i s and J. C l a r k S a l y e r Refuges.
(Figure 16)
Waterfowl u s i n g t h e r e f u g e s u t i l i z e t h i s v e g e t a t i o n
a s a food s o u r c e and i t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t damage t o t h e v e g e t a t i o n
*!could, i n some y e a r s , r e s u l t i n t h e l o s s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 28,000
' b i r d s . & Due t o t h e phenomenon known a s t h e ' f a l l s h u f f l e ' ,
which
1
I
i s a b r i e f northward movement o f some w a t e r f o w l p r i o r t o t h e f a l l
m i g r a t i o n , a b o u t o n e - q u a r t e r o r 7,000 of t h e s eA b i, r- d s would b e
l o s t t o Canada.
Under e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , a c a r p m i g r a t i o n would b e
p r e v e n t e d from r e a c h i n g t h e Upper S o u r i s R i v e r by ~ a k eD a r l i n g
If the B u r l i n g t o n
p
. -r o j e c t w e r e i n o p e r a t i o n , however, c a r p c o u l d e n t e r L a k e
Dqm, which i s p r e s e n t l y a p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r .
~ ~ r 1 i . ni ;n t h o s e F a r e y e a r s i n which t h e ~ u ~ l i n ~ t o ~ ' p o o 1
.
, - f l o o d e d o u t t h e Lake D a r l i n g D a m s p i l l w a y . , I n i t i a l e n t r y t o
'F
,it h e B u r l i n g t o n p o o l c o u l d b e made t h r o u g h e i t h e r
'f,
,c.
the l o t l e v e l
o u t l e t on B u r l i n g t o n Dam i n low f l o w p e r i o d s o r t h r o u g h t h e
D e s Lacs Tunnel i n h i g h f l o w p e r i o d s .
Once c a r p e n t e r e d Lake
'
D a r l i n g , t h e y would m i g r a t e up t h e S o u r i s R i v e r i n t o Saskatchewan,
I t i s estimatch t h a t , i n some y e a r s , t h i s c o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e
'
loss of up t o 2,400 w a t e r f o w l t h r o u g h h a b i t a t d e s t r u t i o n .
.
'
I
-
'/
,d
I
MANITOBA
nr~\:ATC.\1F:WAFJ
N
m
I
J C L A R K SALYER
!JQRT!i
DAKOTA
'UPPER SOURIS
W l L O C I F E REFUGE
It should be noted that the carp problem is already
a domestic United States concern and is under study by the
Corps of Engineers and the United States Fish and wildlife
Service.
MITIGATION
ALTERNATIVES
--
In its studies, the Board looked at a number of
structural mitigation measures as well as a number of compensatory
or non-structural measures for mitigation of project effects
in Manitoba. (Figure 17) The structural measures included
dykes, channelization, floodways and wildlife impoundments and
the non-structural measures included land purchase, flood easements, acreage replacement and a sinking fund to provide annual
compensation. Because of the low level of damages in Manitoba,
the no mitigation or do nothing alternative was also considered.
A summary of all alternatives is contained in Table 17 on
page 70 of the report. .With respect to the qtructural measures,
dykes could be constructed along the existing channel of the
Westhope Reach (Figure 6) where the economic studies indicated
that increases in damages exceeded decreases. Dykes to protect
the lower band against fall flows of up to 600 cfs would cost
approximately $675,000. Dykes to contain the 1 in 50 flood in
this reach would cost approximately $10 million. The former
dyke would reduce increases in average annual damages due to
Burlington by about $256 while the latter would eliminate all
increases which total $478 annually.
A dyke at Melita that would contain the 1976 flood
would cost approximately $200,000. Containment of this flood
would eliminate increases in average annual damages due to
Burlington which total $886 annually.
OdlITIGATION A L T E R N A T I V E S
STRUCTURAL
- DYKES
- CHANNELI,ZATION
'
- FLOODWAYS
- WILDLIFE
IMPOUNDMENTS
N0N STRUCTURAL
h
-
L A N D PURCHASE
- ACREAGE REPLACEMENT
- FLOOD EASEP?iENTS
A
r
,?,
Westhope to a point approximately 11 miles north to carry Burlington
fall flows would cost approximately $2.5 million, and woulg have
the same .effect as the lower cost dyking alternative for the
Westhope Reach.
.
>q
,
.'<
.
If it were deemed advisable to protect the existing
river channellforenvironmental reasons, the same effect as for .
dyking and channelization.could be realized by constructing a
separate floodway channel to carry fall flows around the existing
low capacity channel. This alternative would cost in excess of
$2.5 million.
The existing valley bottom in the Westhope Reach could
be used to create a wildlife refuge similar to the upstream refuges
.at a cost of approximately $2.0 million. This alternative would
change land use in the valley to one more compatible with flooding
but would have several disadvantages in the area of flow control
and water conservation.
It is evident that these structural alternatives are
all extremely costsly relative to the damages from the Burlington
project. In addition, they would all have adverse environmental
impacts greater than the project itself.
In summary then, the structural alternatives are:
(Figure 18)
1) Rural dyking in the Westhope Reach at an estimated
cost varying from $675,000 to $10 million depending
on the degree of protection with a maximum annual
decrease in damages (or benefit) of $ 4 7 8 .
2) Urban dyking in the Town,of Melita at an estii:~ated
cost of $200,000 and an annual benefit of $886.
.
:3
I
,"
-
STRUCTURAL
-
ALTERNATIVES
COSY
- Rural D y k ing -Wesf-hope .Reach
- Char!ncl Improvement
$675,000 to
$ 10 million
ANNUAL B E N E F I T
3)
.if$
Channel improvement i n t h e Westhope and P e n i n s u l a
..
: >. .b.-,-
B r i d g e Reaches w i t h a n e s t i m a t e d c o s t o f $2.5
,'
m i l l i o n and a maximum a n n u a l b e n e f i t o f $256.
I
.,-.,'
,
,
+
.?*
.
A floodway t h a t would c o s t i n e x c e s s o f $2.5 m i l l i o n
4)
t o p e r f o r m t h e s a m e f u n c t i o n a s t h e improved'
%
-
channel.
,
$ 8
..
i
*.
, "a
,
..t
.
'i
&
w i l d l i f e r e f u g e a t a c o s t o f $2.0 m i l l i o n f o r
*
. ! *
:,:
,
a maximurn a n n u a l b e n e f i t o f $256,' ' *
5)
7
1
(
I
, ,
a
:
I
2 .
i
I'
'
With r e s p e c t t o n o n - s t r u c t u r a l m e a s u r e s , p u r c h a s e of
t h e l a n d i n t h e Westhope Reach f l o o d e d by B u r l i n g t o n f a l l f l o w s
L
+,.
:
.
$
.J
,
-.
1
would c o s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $54,000 f o r r e d u c t i o n o f $256 i n a v e r a g e
a n n u a l damages.
,
,
I f enough l a n d w a s p u r c h a s e d t o
(Figure 19)
.
e l i m i n a t e a l l i m p a c t s i n t h e Westhope Reach, t h e c o s t would b e
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $393,000 f o r a r e d u c t i o n o f $478 i n a v e r a g e a n n u a l
damages.
P u r c h a s e of t h e e n t i r e a f f e c t e d r u r a l a r e a i n t h e
S o u r i s R i v e r V a l l e y i n Manitoba would c o s t $4.3 m i l l i o n and
e l i m i n a t e a l l a v e r a g e a n n u a l a g r i c u l t u r a l ddmages o f $5,006.
To r e d u c e t h e s o c i a l d i s r u p t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l a n d
purchase, l a n d r e q u i r e d could be r e p l a c e d with a l t e r n a t e land
p u r c h a s e d f r o m w i l l i n g s e l l e r s o u t s i d e t h e f l o o d zone.
The
e s t i m a t e d cost o f t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e would b e $81,000 f o r t h e l o w e r
Westhope Brand, $590,000 f o r t h e e n t i r e Westhope Reach and $ 6 . 5
million f o r t h e entire a f f e c t e d a r e a , Damage r e d u c t i o n would,
of c o u r s e , be t h e same a s f o r l a n d p u r c h a s e .
F l o o d e a s e m e n t s t o h a v e t h e same e f f e c t s a s l a n d
p u r c h a s e would cost a p p r o x i m a t e l y $21,000 f o r t h e low f l o w a r e a
. .
i n t h f U e s t h o p e Reach, $155 ,000 f o r t h e e n t i" -" r? e ,Westhope Reach
1
'an4
,
t
i
'
, I '
' I '
.
*'
$ 1 . 7 m i l l i o n f o r t h e e n t i r e r i v e r v a l l, e y ..
'
t
%
d
' ,
,
a
L
(.
1
4*:
I
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
.
,.
.-
.. -. .
. .
:
.
.
.
..
. .. . ,.
.
.
. . .
,
,
,
.
.
.
f.:
.
' $ 2
,fix
*
.
l
:i!fi :
..,
...... :.. ;><Q
.
. . .>... .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . - . . . . ..;:.?
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -. ... ... .,..,
.. .- . . . . ...- . .. .. .. .:--.. . . .
.
:,I.-
. .. . . .. . .
. ....
,
.
:
.
.
.
.
_ - 8 .
.
-,
,
.
.
.
-I.,.
.
9
'. I
ALTERNATIVE
A N N U A L BENEFIT
+
.%
-a n d Purchase
- Entire Westhope Reach
393,000
- E n t i r e A f f e c t e d A r e a * $ 4.3 million
Screaqe Replacement
- ' L o v ~ e rBand Viles'ihope Reach $81,000
1
$255
- E n t i r e Westhope Reach $590,C00
- Entire A f f e c t e d Area . $ 6.5 miilioi7
I
478
I
F l o o d Easements
-
Entire Westhope Reach $155,000
- Entire Al'fzcted A r e a -,) 1.7 rn'iliioa
.J1:
*
9.7 0
Compensation Fund
-
Annual compensation o f
individuals for net
increase in damages.
- A n n u a l comgensafios~of
individuals For total
increase in damages.
$4?!,800@10%
"
-
$ 9,600@5%'
$34~(a~ero~e
annual
payout)
$$82,000@i10%
9 5,872
1$164,0~0@5"/6 (average
annua 1
pay out
*,
PART IV
DISCUSSION OF THE CONCLUSIONS Am
, *
,
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IMPACTS ON CANADA
OF OPERATION OF THE BURLINGTON PROJECT
OCTOBER 9, 1980
-
. .
,,
.
. . I
:
,
,
*
,
,,
.
,
(.
?!
,
Conclusions and
1
.
.
.
I
,,
:
,
The Board has made a number of findipgs and has
..
' . ,.
. .
on the results of its studies regardiqg
the impacts
. . .,
.
Burlington
.
.~. project.
..
P.,
,
.
..
. . .
.
. . . ,.
The ~oard6 findings and. conclusio~sare :
.
,
.
.:
.
' .
;;
. . . : ..
. ..
.
...
. . ...
:..
. .
.
.
I
'.?:'. ,:,
./
,
. ..:
,4.2
,
.
:
1. Operation of the Burlington Dam and Reservoir would have no significant
>
*:
.
I
,
1 .
." ' <. '
.r'
.
, '4
,
.
adverse impacts on the farmland in the valley flats in Saskatchewan.
The low level of impacts, col~pledwith the very low frequency of occurrence,
would render mitigation of impacts on Saskatchewan unwarranted.
2. Operation of the Burlington project would benefit some individual landowners
in Manitoba and the Towns of Melita, Souris, and Wawanesa in some years.
In
other years, some individual landowners and the Town of Melita would experience
minor adverse economic impacts from project operation. The average annual decrease
in damages in Manitoba would be $11,228. The average annual increase in damages
would be $5,872, resulting in a net average annual decrease in damages or benefit
.
r
c
of $5,356 in 1975 Canadian dollars.
As the Burlington Project was developed for flood control in the United
,
States, decreases in damages to Manitoba from its operation could be regarded
= .
"windfall benefit?".
'.
Accordingly, t h increase
~
in aYeF$gg
anoval d+rn&es
.
, ,r -y',
. .
.
. ' . .
': .-.
.
!
..:
;
. !.;;:<[.+
..
.
might be considered' to be a reasonable. basis . for mitigation.
T:
>.i(:.
!-,-.,'*>
.
-9
:q.,.. ,;,;,<5'.; , . .
. . -,
, .$. ,: ..?.?,
. ..,..
as
,
,,
,
?
?
!
.
.
,.
4
..'?
:*
,
,
I[
,
.
"
\
. ..
,
In any given year, damages or benefits would not be equally
d4stributed
:
-
among landowners along the Souris River in Manitoba.
s
C
$:'
Is
'
J
1
*
A
+
,'
. . (.
,
- ,
3.
The structural mitigation alternatives studied would have inordinately
. . high
7
1
a
t.
costs relative to the value of mitigation achieved and would result in gTeater
1
environmental impacts than those caused by the Burlington Project itself.
Struc',
tural mitigation would therefore be neither econoniically nor environmentally
feasible.
.
4.
Non structural courses of action that appear workable are:
a)
No mitigation
- This appeared workable due to the small economic
*",
impacts on Maniotba.
b)
Purchase of an easement in the Westhope,reach for flows of up to
6.00cfs
-
The Westhope reach would be affected by late sumper and
fall releases from the Burlington Project as it is the only reach in
which the channel capacity is less than the release rate. This option
:
-
would mitigate the late summer and fall effects of the Burlington Project
but would not fully compensate for increased spring flooding damages.
c)
Lump sum payment for the increase in average'annual damages
This option would provide full compensation for the increase in
average annual damages in Canada.
<
I
l
.,.
Purchase Westhope easement described in option b) and provide a'
'
.
lump sum payment for the remaining increased average annual damages
d)
I
-c
-
This option would provide full compensation for the increase in average
annual damages to Canada and the purchase of an easement in this area
,
would greatly reduce the effort required to assess the effects of the
project in years in which it operated.
5.
The environmental impacts of the Burlington Project on Manitoba and
Saskatchewan would be negligible.
6.
The potential exists for carp to become established in the Souris River
system.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are presented
for the Commission's consideration:
.
#
,
the Souris River above Wawanesa Dam and (b) prevent carp i n f e s t a t i o n qf
i
J
the Souris River w i l d l i f e refuges i n the United S t a t e s and Canada.
.' .
I
The
f e a s i b i l i t y of incorporation of physical carp control measures and carp
control contingency plans i n t o the f i n a l design of the Burlington Project
should be given comprehensive examination.
n
b r h ~ ~ Il I Li ~ n
I \ U~
I
n d 1 ~ 1 . uI
1'
I - . =.
IVIVWI\
I
,
UL:,,
IL. t v ~ w n . d d
Cat. No./No. de Cat.: GAV 7510
+=-=5
r
L = o--i
b
v r . .
-.. ---. . . .-
CY>
. .-
4-
,
a.
r....
9
t
A'
FINDINGS $ CONCLUSIONS
1. NO SIGNlFlCANf ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE FARMLAND
-IN THE VALLEVAN SASKATCHEWAN.
THE LOW LEVEL OF IMPACTS ,COUPLED WITH
THE VERY L O W FREQUENCY O F OCCURRENCE,
WOULD -RENDER M l i l G A f ION OF IMPACTS ON
4
SASKAT-CHEWAN UNWARRANTED.
2. OPERATION OF
sualiiNafaN
PROJECT WOULD
BENEFIT SOME INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS 8. TOWNS
1
I
'INDIViDUA&,jL;A'NBOWNEBS& 'fHE TOWN
MELjTA
WOULD EXPERIENCE -MINOR ADV,ERSE ECONOMIC IMPACTS.
:
ANNUAL JWCREASE IN XMMAQES WOULD -BE $5,437.2
--..
-. .
'
I
,
-
.
u - I k L .
,;--.-
,
.-.
.-
,,A,
C
'I
-
. Cat. No./No. d e Cat.:GAV 7510
Cd.
,
t..
,
.
,.
_I
3. THE S f AUCTURAL .MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES WOULD
f HE
%HAVE~~N~RD~NAT-E~Y.JHIGI-I
%COSTS$)ECLATIVE
VALUE OF MITIOAT,iON ACHIEVE6 & WOULD RESULT ,IN
GREATER rbENVIRONMENf
AG dMPACTS f HAN "THOSE
CAUSED BY THE BURLINGf~6N'PROJECT ITSELF.
1'
'L
LI
.
r
,
, ' . '
'
a
Cat. No./No. de Cat.: GAV 7510
L O J
C.:*=:.;->
t-.
(d..
4. ;NOPI S f RUCTURAL COURSES OF ACTION
.a) NO ; M I fIGATION
b') +PURCHASEQF AN EASEMENT IN THE WESTHOPE
REACW,FORFLOWS OF UP TO (600 % c ~ s )
G) .LUMP SUM PAYMENT' FOR THE INCREASE
IN
JWERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES.
I1
0
.
.
d) PURCHASE WESTHOPE 'EASEMENT ~ E S C R I B EIND
:OPTION 8 ) & PROVIDE A LUMP SUM "FOR THE
REM MAIMING ,INCREASED AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES.
. -. -43ASKATCHEWAN
.
,I
WOULD 'BE MEOLlGIBL.'E.
"
-
2
I
,
JI
..
Cat. No./No. de Cat.: G A V 7510
L
O J
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. STRUCTURAL MITIGATION MEASURES NOT BE CONSIDERED
-HIGH COSTS
-ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL iMBACT.
2. NEGOTIATIONS BE UNDERTAKEN WITH MANITOBA FOR
MlTldAf ION-4 OPTIONS
3. CARP CONTROL
-DETECT CARP MlGRAf ION
PART V
-
CURRENT STATUS
OF BURLINGTON DAM
, .
The B u r l i n g t o n Dam p r o j e c t i s t h e second phase of t h e f o t a l f l o o d
r
z
;9 .
control plan f o r t h e Souris ~ i v e V
r alley.
The c h a n n e l m o d i f i c a, .,t i o n Lri
Ninot was a u t h o r i z e d i n t h e summer o f 1970; c o n s t r u c t i o n was c o k l e t e d
i n 1978 and p r o v i d e s a 20-year p r o t e c t i o n w i t h a c a p a c i t y of 5,000 c f s .
,
i
.,
,
The B u r l i n g t o n Dam p r o j e c t , f i r s t a u t h o r i z e d i n 1970, needs f u r t h e r
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 b e c a u s e o f f o u r s i g n i f i c a n t changes:
1.
Diversion tunnel.
2.
Downstream improvements.
3.
F i s h and w i l d l i f e m i t i g a t i o n .
4.
P o s s i b l e Canadian compensation.
*.
,
..
The Water Resource (omnibus) b i l l which i n c l u d e s
authorization f o r t h e s e
changes h a s been p a s s e d by t h e U.S. House of R e,p r e.s e n t a t i v e s ,
However,
t h e b i l l i s s t i l l b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d by t h e U.S, S e n a t e ? Within t h e Corps
of E n g i n e e r s c h a n n e l s , t h e p r o j e c t w i l l b e propessed $n t h e normal> manner
>
I
I
A s a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n , t h e House-Senate c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t for f g q q a l
year 1 9 8 1 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i p g s t a t e m e n+ t :
a
I
4
.*.
7;.
"The c o n f e r e e s a g r e e t h a t upon approval'
- of k e g i s l a t i o p
1
modifying t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h e Burlingto.r\,.
I
A
.
, N o f ~ hD&of
p r o j e c t , t h e Corps of E n g i n e e r s i s t o p r o,v i d. e sych
. - 'funding
.
$.
as may b e n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y o u t p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n, a s. t i v i t i e s ..
"I-
&
.
%A
f$
"PTP
>a
-,
d u r i n g f i s c a l y e a r 1981."
The e a r l i e s t t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d s t a r t would b e f i s c a l y e a r 1982;
a
I
.
I n 1972 a d e c i s i o n was made by t h e Corps t o increase t h e design c a p a c i t y
f o r t h e conveyance works through Minot t o 5000 CFS and t h e work was
completed by 1978.
The B u r l i n g t o n P r o j e c t was a l s o r e f o r m ur l a. t e d i n 1976
t o reduce t h e r e s e r v o i r l e v e l and r e l e a s e r a t e s and i n c o r p o r a t e a
d i v e r s i o n from t h e Des Lacs r i v e r system. The Board commenced s t u d i e s of
t h e p r o j e c t r e f o r m u l a t i o n and r e p o r t e d t o t h e Commission i n November 1,977.
~ ol oli i n g r e c e i p t of t h e 1977 r e p o r t t h e Cornmi s s i o i requested' t h e $bard
I
.
t o consider a d d i t i o n a l questions r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o j e c t , i n c l u d i n g economic
5.
and environmental impacts and m i t i g a t i o n a1 t e r n a t i yes. More speci f i c a l l y
. ,'
study was undertaken o f :
8
.
k
1.
Economic and environmental impact on Canada o f o p e r a t i o n
o f the Burlington Project
,
2.
t h e nature, scope and c o s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e e i t i g a t i g n measures
3.
t h e p h y s i c a l impact, ifany, o f t h e planned a l t e r a t i o n t o
s t r u c t u r e s i n J. Clark Salyer W i l d l i f e Refuge
4.
t h e environmental impacts on Canada associated w i t h imp1 ementation
o f a1 t e r n a t i v e m i t i g a t i o n measures.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e studies were then combined w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e 1977
r e p o r t such t h a t t h e r e p o r t received by t h e Commission on March 26, 1980
addresses both t h e o r i g i n a l request and the more r e c e n t request.
Note: Before t h e opening remarks reference w i l l be made t o t h e l o c a t i o n
maps; t h e r o l e o f t h e Task Force, t h e d i f f e r e n c e between B u r l i n g t o n Dam
and B u r l i n g t o n P r o j e c t , and general s t r u c t u r e o f p r e s e n t a t i o n t o f o l l o w .