DRAFT

Pembina River Basin Watershed Management Plan

DRAFT

July 2005

DRAFT

Draft document prepared for the Pembina River Basin Advisory Board by the Energy & Environmental Research Center and the Red River Regional Council.

LEGAL NOTICE This research report was prepared by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), an agency of the University of North Dakota, as an account of work sponsored by the Red River Regional Council and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Because of the research nature of the work performed, neither the EERC nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation by the EERC.

DRAFT

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Establishment of the Pembina River Basin Advisory Board (PRBAB) ......................... 6 1.2 Management Area Work Groups .................................................................................... 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF BASIN RESOURCES ....................................................................... 8 2.1 Physiology....................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Natural Regions ............................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Economic Activities...................................................................................................... 16

3.0 IDENTIFY WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS................................................................ 18 3.1 Surface Water Quality................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Aquifers and Groundwater Quality............................................................................... 19 3.3 Water Quality Reports and Studies............................................................................... 19

4.0 CAUSES/SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS.......................................... 20 4.1 Agricultural Runoff....................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Influence of Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) ........................................................ 21

5.0 WATER NEEDS AND EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES ............................................... 22 5.1 Water Demand .............................................................................................................. 22 5.2 Water Supply ................................................................................................................ 23

6.0 FLOODING HISTORY.................................................................................................... 23 6.1 Pembina River Flooding ............................................................................................... 24 6.2 The 1997 Flood............................................................................................................. 24 6.3 Pembina River Flood Control ....................................................................................... 25

7.0 FLOOD HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 27 7.1 Flood Risk..................................................................................................................... 27 7.2 Damage Potential .......................................................................................................... 27 7.3 Flooding Impact ............................................................................................................ 28

8.0 WETLANDS..................................................................................................................... 29 8.1 Recharge and Flooding ................................................................................................. 30 8.2 Water Quality and Erosion............................................................................................ 30 8.3 Biology.......................................................................................................................... 30 8.4 Commerce and Recreation............................................................................................ 31 8.5 Wetland Loss ................................................................................................................ 31

9.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 32 10.0 WATER QUALITY.......................................................................................................... 39

10.1 Total Suspended Solids................................................................................................. 40 10.2 Phosphorus.................................................................................................................... 42 10.3 Nitrates and Nitrites ...................................................................................................... 43 10.4 Fecal Coliform Bacteria................................................................................................ 45 10.5 Loading ......................................................................................................................... 46

11.0 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................. 49 12.0 RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 53 13.0 PROJECTS AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .......................... 61

13.1 Land Management ........................................................................................................ 61 13.2 Water Quality Strategies ............................................................................................... 61 13.3 Water Supply Issues...................................................................................................... 62 13.4 Flood Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 63 13.5 Wetlands Programs ....................................................................................................... 64

3

DRAFT

14.0 GOALS AND DECISIONS.............................................................................................. 65 14.1 Common Basin Goals ................................................................................................... 65 14.2 Specific Watershed Concerns and Goals ...................................................................... 66 14.3 Recommendations for Future Actions .......................................................................... 67

15.0 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................... 69 15.1 Acronyms...................................................................................................................... 69 15.2 References..................................................................................................................... 70

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Affiliations of the PRBAB................................................................................................ 6 Table 2. Hydrology of selected rivers and streams in the Pembina basin .................................... 13 Table 3. Population of the major communities in the PRB. ......................................................... 18 Table 4. Impaired waters in the U.S. portion of the PRB. ............................................................ 19 Table 5. Estimated Projection of Water Demand for the Pembina River Basin........................... 22 Table 6. Water quantity data for selected lakes and reservoirs in the Pembina basin. ................. 23 Table 7. Peak streamflows for the Pembina River........................................................................ 24 Table 8. Peaks for Streams in Pembina River Basin. ................................................................... 29 Table 9. Years that management areas were monitored during WRAS. ...................................... 32 Table 10. Planned sampling frequency for monitoring sites. ....................................................... 33 Table 11. Total suspended solids summary data for the Headwaters/Pelican Lake management

area........................................................................................................................................ 40 Table 12. Total suspended solids summary data for the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management

area........................................................................................................................................ 41 Table 13. Total suspended solids summary data for the Cypress Creek/Swan Lake management

area........................................................................................................................................ 41 Table 14. Total suspended solids summary data for the Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South

Pembina management area. .................................................................................................. 41 Table 15. Total suspended solids summary data for the Lower Pembina and Tongue management

area........................................................................................................................................ 41 Table 16. Phosphorus summary data for the Headwaters/Pelican Lake management area.......... 42 Table 17. Phosphorus summary data for the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management area. ......... 42 Table 18. Phosphorus summary data for the Cypress Creek/Swan Lake management area. ....... 43 Table 19. Phosphorus summary data for the Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South Pembina

management area. ................................................................................................................. 43 Table 20. Phosphorus summary data for the Lower Pembina and Tongue management area. .... 43 Table 21. Nitrate+nitrite summary data for the Headwaters/Pelican Lake management area...... 44 Table 22. Nitrate+nitrite summary data for the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management area...... 44 Table 23. Nitrate+nitrite summary data for the Cypress Creek/Swan Lake management area.... 44 Table 24. Nitrate+nitrite summary data for the Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South Pembina

management area. ................................................................................................................. 45 Table 25. Nitrate+nitrite summary data for the Lower Pembina and Tongue management area. 45 Table 26. Summary of instantaneous fecal coliform readings...................................................... 46 Table 27. Summary of instantaneous total suspended solids loading values ............................... 47 Table 28. Summary of instantaneous phosphorus loading values ................................................ 47 Table 29. Summary of instantaneous nitrate+nitrite loading values............................................. 48 Table 30. Total nitrogen measured at select water quality monitoring stations in Manitoba. ...... 48

4

DRAFT

Table 31. Total phosphorus measured at select water quality monitoring stations in Manitoba.. 49 Table 32. Results of riparian health assessment. .......................................................................... 54 Table 33. Results of stream visual assessment protocol. .............................................................. 55 Table 34. Summary of potential riparian impairments in Manitoba............................................. 56 Table 35. Summary of potential riparian impairments in N.D. .................................................... 57 Table 36. Land use/land cover data for the management areas in the PRB.................................. 58 Table 37. Results of macroinvertebrate assessment. .................................................................... 59 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Work Group Areas.............................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Extent of glacial Lake Agassiz ........................................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Location of the Pembina River Basin.............................................................................. 9 Figure 4. Tributaries of the Pembina River .................................................................................. 10 Figure 5. Shaded relief map of the Pembina River Basin............................................................. 12 Figure 6. Monthly mean flows for the Pembina River at various locations. ................................ 14 Figure 7. Annual Runoff for the Pembina River at Neche. .......................................................... 14 Figure 8. Dams and water retention structures in the Pembina River Basin ............................... 26 Figure 9. Annual high discharge of selected streams in the PRB................................................. 29 Figure 10. Example of aerial photograph identifying potential riparian impairments in Manitoba.

............................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 11. Example of aerial photograph identifying potential riparian impairments along the

Pembina River in North Dakota............................................................................................ 37 Figure 12. Water quality monitoring sites in the Pembina River Basin ....................................... 39 Figure 13. Rainfall graph for four U.S. stations in the Pembina River Basin. ............................. 49 Figure 14. Pembina River hydrograph at Walhalla. ..................................................................... 50 Figure 15. Pembina River hydrograph at Neche........................................................................... 50 Figure 16. Little South Pembina River hydrograph near Walhalla. ............................................. 51 Figure 17. Rainfall-runoff relationship at Walhalla...................................................................... 52

5

DRAFT

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Establishment of the Pembina River Basin Advisory Board (PRBAB) In the fall of 1996, Hetty Walker, Mayor of Pembina, ND convened several county and city officials of Pembina County to discuss concerns associated with frequent flooding during the 1990’s. One of the objectives was to formulate a strategy to construct the Pembilier Dam. Representatives from the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) were invited to attend a subsequent meeting to discuss the possible construction of the dam. Pembina County and city officials were advised to form a basin wide group that could formulate and implement a water management plan for the entire Pembina River basin in North Dakota and Manitoba, including representation from both the US and Canada. The Pembina River Basin Advisory Board (PRBAB, or Advisory Board), was therefore established in January 1998, intentionally included 'Advisory' in its name to clarify that its role does not undermine the authority held by other jurisdictions. Affiliations with representation in the Advisory Board are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Affiliations of the PRBAB (Framework, 2001)

Manitoba North Dakota Pembina Valley Conservation District Pembina County Commission Turtle Mountain Conservation District City of Pembina R.M. of Rhineland Pembina County Water Resources Board R.M. of Montcalm Cavalier County Water Resources Board Town of Gretna Cavalier County Commission Pembina Valley Water Coop Towner County Water Resources Board Manitoba Water Resources Branch Rollette County Water Resources Board R.M. of Stanley City of Neche R.M. of Strathcona City of Walhalla

Pembina County Townships Assn. Cavalier County Assn.

Pembina County Soil Conservation District

The PRBAB's purpose is to develop and cause to be implemented a comprehensive water management plan for the Pembina River Basin and to facilitate and pursue the resolution of inter-jurisdictional issues. This purpose reflects that of the Red River Basin Board, established in June 1997, and underscores the collaboration that the PRBAB intends. A comprehensive plan addresses the range of conditions from flood to drought and optimized benefits considering environmental and socio-economic issues. The PRBAB was awarded a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) grant for assessment level activities throughout the basin. This will involve water chemistry, land use

6

DRAFT

analysis, riparian function assessment, and biological monitoring along the Pembina River and its tributaries to gather baseline information, identify problems and define solutions. Execution of the WRAS will assist in determining where, when, and how water quality concerns will be addressed in the basin.

1.2 Management Area Work Groups In November 1999, the PRBAB established five work groups to initiate development of the management plan. Where appropriate, the boundaries follow the watershed boundaries within the Pembina River basin. However, it was the wish of the PRBAB to keep management of these areas local. The boundaries were moved to reflect this decision, as shown in Figure 1. The waters included in each work group are the Headwaters and Pelican Lake; Badger Creek and Rock Lake; Cypress Creek and Swan Lake; Snowflake Creek, Mowbray Creek, and Little South Pembina River; and Tongue River and Lower Pembina River. Each group was asked to establish goals and proposed actions using a consensus process.

A consensus process is one in which those who have a stake in the outcome aim to reach agreement on actions and outcomes that resolve or advance issues related to environmental, social and economic stability…. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.

Canadian Roundtables on the Environment and Economy

Figure 1. Map of Work Group Areas

7

DRAFT

The mission statement of the watershed work groups and the PRBAB reflect the purposes set out in the bylaws.

Develop and help to implement a Pembina River Watershed Management Plan for the health, safety and economic well being of present and future generations. Monitor, review and update the plan over time to meet changing conditions.

Each of the groups held five meetings during the winter of 1999-2000. Results of these meetings can be found in the Appendix. The remainder of this document discusses the basin as a whole or simply the region. The Section 14.0 describes specific goals for each management area. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF BASIN RESOURCES

2.1 Physiology History of Pembina River The landscape of the Pembina River basin has changed dramatically over its time. Existing formations began with the Laurentide Ice Sheet (glacier), which retreated and readvanced several times with advances 17,000, 14,000, and 12,300 years ago (McCollor, 2004). During this time, the grasslands of southern Manitoba began developing. The glacial Lake Agassiz (Figure 2) expanded north into the region from 11,600 to 11,200 years ago. What would become the Pembina River at the time is more accurately better described as a spillway rather than a river, with flows suggested to have occurred as catastrophic floods. The Pembina Gorge was carved by this ancient Pembina River, which was much larger than the present-day Pembina River, as the meltwater was carried from glacial Lake Souris in north-central North Dakota and southern Manitoba (WRND, 2004).

Figure 2. Extent of glacial Lake Agassiz (Ashworth, 2004)

8

DRAFT

The River and Tributaries The Pembina River basin, shown in Figure 3, is situated astride the Canada-US boundary in northeast North Dakota and southwest Manitoba. The basin is approximately 130 mi (209 km) long and varies in width from 18 to 52 mi (29-84 km). It covers 3958 mi2 (10,251 km2) --about half in each country. In Manitoba, the basin encompasses all or part of the municipalities of Morton, Riverside, Strathcona, Argyle, Lorne, Turtle Mountain, Roblin, Louise, Pembina and Stanley. In North Dakota, the basin includes the counties of Pembina, Cavalier, Towner and Rollette.

Figure 3. Location of the Pembina River Basin

9

DRAFT

It rises in southern Manitoba on the northeastern slope of Turtle Mountain, about 10 mi (16 km) south of the town of Boissevain, Manitoba (Halliday, 2004). Prior to entering Rock Lake, Long River joins the Pembina River from the west and Badger Creek enters from the south. Following the lake, Cypress Creek joins the Pembina from the south as it turns northeast to meet with Swan Lake. The Pelican, Rock and Swan Lakes are each several miles long and from a half mile to 1 mile wide. Alluvial and sedimentary deposits were brought into this valley by tributaries of deep coulees after it ceased to be the avenue of drainage from the Souris Basin. These deposits along the valley bottom created natural dams behind where the lakes have formed. Upon exiting Swan Lake, the Pembina River flows southeasterly occupying an ever-deepening channel (as much as 400 feet deep and a mile or more wide) until it crosses the International Boundary (Halliday, 2004). Snowflake and Mowbray Creeks flow into the Pembina prior to its crossing into North Dakota. From the border, the Pembina River continues flowing southeast. The Little North Pembina River, flowing southward from Manitoba, and the Little South Pembina River, flowing easterly through North Dakota, joins the Pembina a few miles west of Walhalla. The Pembina River then flows east to Neche and Pembina, finally emptying into the Red River of the North. The Tongue River joins the Pembina a few miles upstream of its junction with the Red River (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Tributaries of the Pembina River

2.2 Natural Regions Climate and Precipitation The climate in the basin is characterized by wide variations in temperature and rainfall. Average monthly temperatures vary from 66.5º F (19.2°C) in July to -1.4º F (-18.6°C) in January for the

10

DRAFT

1961 to 1990 period of record. However, extreme temperatures of 112º F (44°C) and -54º F (-48°C) have been recorded. The average monthly precipitation ranges from 3.2 in (81 mm) in June to 0.7 in (18 mm) in February. Rainfall during the growing season is rarely more than 13 inches. Snowfall, averaging 38 in (970 mm) annually, is approximately 21% of the total precipitation. The estimated gross evaporation in the basin is 29.0 in (737 mm). The mean effective growing season is about 155 days, with an average frost-free period of about 124 days. Geology

The Red River Valley is an exceptionally flat plain that marks the former floor of glacial Lake Agassiz, once the largest fresh water lake in North America (Bluemle, 2004). The central portion of the valley is characterized by flat-lying silt and clay deposited on the lake bottom. Along its margins, ancient beaches and wave-eroded scarps mark former shorelines. These beaches and scarps mark the western and eastern margin of the Red River Valley, and they are the southward continuation of the Pembina Escarpment. The escarpment has historically been known by many names such as the Hair Hills, Pembina Hills or Mountains, and the Sainte Marie or Saint Mary's Mountains (WRND, 2004). The river valley winding through the hills is known as the Pembina Gorge, which lies entirely within the Drift Plain region of North Dakota (Faanes, 2004).

West of the escarpment, in the upper plateau region, much of the bedrock consists of shale. Surface deposits are mainly glacial tills with pockets of sand, gravel, silt and clay. East of the escarpment, in the Red River Valley portion of the basin, the bedrock consists of marine shale, sandstone and compacted continental silts, sands, clays, and limestone (Kantrud, 1983). Lake sediments of silt and clay deposited by ancient glacial Lake Agassiz overlie the glacial till. On the face of the escarpment, sand and gravel deposits can be observed as remnants of ancient river deltas and beach ridges. Topography As mentioned in the previous section, the basin includes parts of two well-defined topographic subdivisions, separated by the Pembina Escarpment: the Drift Prairie Plateau to the west and the Red River Valley to the east. The escarpment extends in a line from just west of Morden, MB across the International Boundary continuing southeastward past a point immediately west of the town of Walhalla, ND. Here the escarpment rises abruptly 500-600 ft (152-183 m) above the plain to an altitude of about 1500 ft (457 m), as seen in Figure 5. West of the escarpment, the Drift Prairie Plateau is interspersed with irregular hills, undulating plain, poorly drained depressions and the Pembina Valley. The area between the escarpment and the Red River is extremely flat with a gentle slope to the east. In this reach, the Pembina River meanders sluggishly as it crosses the floor of former glacial Lake Agassiz.

11

DRAFT

Figure 5. Shaded relief map of the Pembina River Basin. From an elevation of 2000 ft (607 m) at its source, the Pembina River leaves the Turtle Mountains, flowing northeastward through an increasingly deep valley until it reaches the eastern end of Pelican Lake (Halliday, 2004). From its junction with the outlet of Pelican Lake to Walhalla, at the base of the First Pembina Mountain, its valley varies from 175 to 450 ft (53 to 122 m) in depth (Upham, 2002). East of Walhalla, the valley decreases in size and within 15 mi (24 km) is barely noticeable. In crossing the Red River Valley the Pembina runs in a channel only 20-40 ft (6-12 m) deep. The river gradient in this reach varies gradually from 10 ft/mi (2 m/km) to almost flat near the Red River, where the Pembina riverbed ends at an elevation of 750 ft (229 m). It is important to note that from about the town of Neche to the Red River, the Pembina River is perched. That is, the natural levees confining the river, built up over centuries of flooding, are at the same level as the surrounding plain, or slightly higher. This impedes the movement of flood water back into the river channel (Halliday, 2004). As a result, floods can affect a large area and in some cases overflows continue south into the Tongue River watershed and to the north into the Plum River and Aux Marais watersheds. Hydrology Streamflow in the Pembina basin is highly variable. This is particularly the case on smaller streams--some of which are intermittent. Streamflow data for the Pembina, Tongue, and the Little South Pembina Rivers and for the Mowbray and Snowflake Creeks are summarized in Table 2. The streamflow of the Pembina River increases as it approaches the Red River confluence, naturally due to the addition of its tributaries along the way.

12

DRAFT

Table 2. Hydrology of selected rivers and streams in the Pembina basin (http://nd.water.usgs.gov; Williams, 2000)

Flow Range Average flow

Median annual flow Stream/Location

cfs (m3/s) cfs (m3/s) cfs (m3/s) Data Span

Pembina River – Neche, ND 0-15,100 (428) 222 (6.29) 41.8 (1.18) 2003-1903 Pembina River – Walhalla, ND 0-22,500 (637) 235 (6.65) 39.0 (1.10) 2003-1939

Pembina River – Windygates, MB 0-13,700 (388) 235 (6.65) 30.7 (0.869) 1997-1962

Tongue River – Akra, ND 0-11,800 (334) 26 (0.74) 4.32 (0.122) 2003-1951 Little South Pembina River – Walhalla, ND 0-6,600 (187) 24 (0.68) 1.10 (0.031) 2003-1956*

Snowflake Creek – Snowflake, MB 0-2,710 (78) 25 (0.71) 0.04 (0.001) 1997-1961

Mowbray Creek – Mowbray, MB 0-1,470 (42) 15 (0.42) 0.00 (0.000) 1997-1962 *1983-2000 data unavailable Therefore, water levels typically peak during spring runoff and rapidly decline to a base level derived from groundwater that continues throughout the year, as seen in Figure 6. On average, river flow in the spring months of March, April and May accounts for 68% of the runoff in a given year, while flow in the winter period of December to February accounts for only 2%. Annual runoff volume is also highly variable with recurring periods of wet and dry years, shown in Figure 7. The graph in this figure shows runoff volume recorded on the Pembina River at Neche for the period 1910 to 1999. The lowest annual volume recorded was 2,870 acre-ft (356 hectare-m) in 1939. The highest recorded volume was 765,000 acre-ft (94,400 hectare-m) in 1997.

13

DRAFT

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

M onth

Stre

amflo

w (c

fs)

Windygates , MB (1962-1997)

Walhalla, ND (1940-2003)

Neche, ND (1904-2003)

Figure 6. Monthly mean flows for the Pembina River at various locations.

Volume of Runoff - Pembina River at Neche

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

Volu

me

(acr

e-fe

et)

1 acre-foot equals one acre in area one foot deep

AVERAGE 160,000

Figure 7. Annual Runoff for the Pembina River at Neche.

14

DRAFT

An extensive drainage network for agricultural purposes has claimed land from marshes over the course of time, which has further added to an increase in flow for the Pembina River, especially as it approaches the Red River confluence. It is a constant concern for the people of Pembina basin, i.e., a battle of balancing the advances in economic prosperity versus the damages incurred from an increased risk in flooding. Landscape The basin’s most valuable natural resource is its deep, dark, and rich soil (MB, 2004). According to soil surveys, these fertile black, clay loam soils are found throughout the Manitoba side of the basin. Dark brown, steep and black earth transition soils are in the southwest portion of the basin. The soils were developed on fine textured sediments in the far eastern portion of the basin and on till in the west. Glacial till is specifically noted in areas around Rock Lake and between Swan Lake and the Pembina Escarpment. Mixed textured shallow water-laid deposits can also be found to the north and south of Rock Lake, as well as the southern portion of the escarpment. Lacustrine deposits are also common to the basin, found in the northern portion of the escarpment and to the east, as well as between Rock and Swan Lakes. The soil in the North Dakota side of the basin is also said to be capable of great agricultural production (ND, 2004). However, drainage is an issue for many farmers. The spectrum of well to poorly drained soils can be seen throughout this portion of the basin. North Dakota county soil surveys show medium textured soils in Pembina and Cavalier Counties. Clayey, fine, and coarse soils can be located along the escarpment and loamy soils are found in Rolette County. Erosion of this precious resource is a significant issue in the basin. Mismanaged soils result in depletion of the amount of productive topsoil, and the resulting sedimentation from wind and water erosion can reach rivers and lakes, lowering water quality (SWCS, 2004). According to NRCS, almost half the land on the North Dakota side of the basin is considered highly erodable, where nearly all of it contains excessive wind and water erosion on cropland (McCarthy, 2001). Although wind erosion is not a concern for the Manitoba side of the basin, the soils experience a severe increase in sensitivity due to climate change (GC, 2004). Salinity, which effects crop growth, is a concern as well. Soil in the North Dakota side of the basin contains occasional to frequent inclusion of saline soils in productive land (Seelig, 2000). Low to moderate salinity is found in soils in the Manitoba side (AAFC, 1995). Plant Life

Tall prairie grasses naturally predominate in the Pembina basin, especially in the Red River Valley. Often thought of as an endless expanse of grass, there are thousands of small broadleaf forest stands dotting the prairie landscape (MCFB, 2004). These mini oases of deciduous trees and shrubs not only provide critical habitat for wildlife but can provide a valuable source of income to farmers and landowners through proper woodlot management. As most of the grasslands have been plowed for crops, planting programs have been established for shelterbelts and windbreaks to prevent wind from blowing away precious topsoil.

15

DRAFT

Forests are found in the Pembina Gorge region and Pembina River valleys. The Pembina Hills encompass one of the largest woodland blocks in the North Dakota and one of only three areas large enough to be considered of commercial value for the state (Faanes, 2004). Woodland trees and shrubs in the area include burr oak, aspen, paper birch, beaked hazel, highbush cranberry, service berry, and red osier dogwood (WRND, 2004). The Broadleaf/Mixedwood Forest in the Manitoba portion of the basin is often referred to as the Aspen Parkland, which consists predominantly of aspen, with smaller amounts of white spruce, oak, maple, elm, white birch, and poplar (MCFB, 2004). This forest region supports many small forest operations and contains some of the most productive forest for Manitoba.

Animal Life

The Pembina River basin supports a diversity of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (ND, 2004; MB, 2004). The plains bison formerly roamed the area but disappeared because of over hunting in the late 19th century. Elk and moose can be found in the forest areas between the Turtle Mountains and Pembina Gorge. White-tailed deer are abundant as well as foxes, mink, muskrat, beaver, and weasels. Birds include ducks, geese, and numerous other water birds. Among the fishes that live in the waters of the basin are pike, trout, and muskellunge.

2.3 Economic Activities Economic History

The fur trade, the first major industry in the region following settlement, dominated the local economy until the late 19th century, when it was replaced by agriculture. Rapid agricultural development began after the arrival of the railroads in the 1870s and 1880s, which provided access to the markets of Minneapolis and Saint Paul in Minnesota and Chicago in Illinois (ND, 2004). By 1875, wheat began to replace beaver pelts as the chief export (MB, 2004). At the turn of the 20th century, world demand for wheat was growing and expansion of the railroads began in earnest (MB, 2004).

Today, North Dakota has an extensive system of railroad lines, many serving to transport agricultural products from small farming communities. The basin is traversed by trunk lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Manitoba as well. However, the distance from large consumer centers and sparse population have continued to discourage the growth of manufacturing within the Pembina River basin. Although new industries are developing, they remain tied closely to the agricultural activity of the region (ND, 2004). For example, ethanol production from corn encouraged North Dakota's first ethanol plant to be built in 1985 at Walhalla (Ericksmoen, 1989).

Government

The region went through a series of governmental changes following European settlement. In 1713, England received the area from France (Ericksmoen, 1989). The 49th parallel was established as the boundary between the US and Britain in 1818, splitting government control of the basin (ND, 2004). The US region of the basin then became part of the Minnesota Territory in

16

DRAFT

1849, the Nebraska Territory in 1854, and was then left without territorial government in 1858 when Minnesota became a state (Ericksmoen, 1989). Three years later, the Dakota Territory was officially organized by the Federal government. North Dakota was admitted to the Union as the 39th state on November 2, 1889. The Canadian government created the province of Manitoba with the Manitoba Act of 1870 (MB, 2004). The Pembina River basin, as a whole, is managed under the provision of the 1909 Boundary Water Treaty between Canada and the United States of America (Acres, 2001). This cooperative management is accomplished through the activities of the International Joint Commission (IJC) as authorized by the Treaty.

Today, the basin is not only governed by federal and state/provincial entities, but now numerous county and community officials are involved. All of Manitoba’s incorporated communities elect their own administrators every three years. Unincorporated communities throughout most of the province are administered by local districts established by the provincial government; each district has an appointed administrator or elected advisory council (MB, 2004). Municipal governments are headed by elected representatives and serve under a mayor, reeve, chairman, or warden (Treff, 2002). The executive consists of appointed officials responsible to the body of elected representatives as a whole or to a smaller executive committee, board of control, or similar subsection of the larger group. Each county in North Dakota is governed by an elected board of commissioners and other elective officials, including sheriffs, auditors, and treasurers (ND, 2004). North Dakota’s cities have the mayor and city council, commission, or city manager form of government. Land Use As mentioned previously, the primary land use activity in the Pembina River basin is agriculture. Land use west of the escarpment consists mainly of grain farming and mixed farming interspersed with pasture, forage production, wetlands and wooded valley slopes. East of the escarpment, land use is almost entirely a continuous-cropping agricultural monoculture. Major crops include wheat and other grains, oilseeds, corn, sugar beets and potatoes. Much of the land in this area owes its productivity to an extensive agricultural drainage network. Drainage activities continue today, although generally on a more local scale.

Population Patterns

A wide variety of peoples have occupied the region of the Pembina River basin. Paleo-Indian peoples hunted mammoths, giant bison, and other mega-fauna in 9,500 BC and by 5,500 BC Archaic peoples were hunters and gatherers of essentially modern fauna (Ericksmoen, 1989). About 2,000 years ago native peoples moved to the grasslands from the east (ND, 2004). Plains Village peoples raised corn and other crops in 950 AD and seasonally occupied permanent villages of earth lodges. Around 1600 AD, the Sioux moved onto the plains and by the early 19th century, the Ojibwa lived in the region. When Lewis and Clark were making their voyage of discovery (1804-1806), the area around Pembina city was a substantial settlement of Europeans and Métis, descendants of European trappers and native women. Settlement of the region substantially increased when the great Dakota land boom began in 1879 and when Canada encouraged immigration during the 20th century.

17

DRAFT

In recent decades, however, population growth has slowed. Immigration to Manitoba has declined and large numbers of people—especially the young—have left the province in search of opportunities elsewhere (MB, 2004). North Dakota has experienced a similar trend as the rural population has dropped markedly since 1950 (ND, 2004). This trend continues as the population of the basin during the 1990 US and 1991 Canadian censuses was under 26,000 with about 14,000 in Manitoba and 12,000 in North Dakota. The populations of the major communities are shown in Table 3. Canadian census data for 2001 and U.S. data for 2000 show current population closer to around 23,000, a decrease in the basin of over 2000 people in the span of a decade.

Table 3. Population of the major communities in the PRB.

Town PopulationKillarney 2208Pilot Mound 433Swan Lake 370Boissevain 1544Manitou 781Langdon 2241Walhalla 1131Neche 434Pembina 642Cavalier 1508

3.0 IDENTIFY WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS

3.1 Surface Water Quality In general, water quality is influenced by soil type and land use. The Pembina River basin is rich in nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen and this is reflected in the water quality of its rivers and lakes. Salts and mineral concentrations indicate that the weathering of soils, leaching, and perhaps groundwater contribute to water quality. Historically, Pelican and Rock lakes have experienced severe algae blooms largely due to the amount of nutrients in these lakes. Water quality of the rivers and streams within the Pembina River basin are also influenced by activities in the watershed including agriculture and municipal wastewater discharge. The waters are rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, and exhibit similar water quality characteristics as the basin lakes. In addition, dissolved oxygen in these rivers and streams during the winter months has periodically been low, likely impacting aquatic life and wildlife at these times. Sampling and Monitoring The NDDH and US Geological Survey (USGS) conduct ambient water quality monitoring in North Dakota. Waterbodies monitored in the Pembina River basin include Armourdale Dam, Carpenter Lake, Dion Lake, Hooker Lake, Jenson Lake, Lake Upsilon, Little South Pembina River, Mulberry Creek Watershed, Sheyenne River, and Tongue River. The Pembina River is sampled in two locations: from Neche to the Tongue River confluence, and from the Tongue

18

DRAFT

River to the Red River confluence. Water quality status is based on the water bodies’ ability to support the beneficial uses that are demanded of it. Water quality sampling in the Pembina River watershed in Manitoba has been largely issue driven. There are no long-term, provincial water quality stations in this watershed. Thus, the data are sporadic, representing certain time periods with a variety of analytical variables. The bodies of water monitored in the past were Pelican Lake, Rock Lake, Badger Creek, Pembina River at Windygates and the Long River. Additional fecal coliform data were collected at two beaches in Pelican Lake and were found to be well within provincial guidelines. Water Body Impairments According to the 2004 Section 303(d) list provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are four water bodies/stream reaches classified as impaired in the PRB (Table 4). Table 4. Impaired waters in the U.S. portion of the PRB (2004 303d list). Name Location Impairment Tongue River From its confluence with a tributary NE of cavalier, ND

downstream to its confluence with Big Slough Sedimentation/siltation

Tongue River From Renwick Dam downstream to a tributary NE of Cavalier, ND

Physical substrate habitat alterations

Pembina River From its confluence with a tributary west of Neche, ND downstream to its confluence with the Tongue River

Physical substrate habitat alterations

Renwick Dam Renwick dam is a 220 acre impoundment on the Tongue River in Pembina County, ND. It is home to the Icelandic State Park. Public use is heavy.

Nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators

Armourdale Dam Armourdale Dam is a 79.8 acre reservoir on Armourdale Coulee in Towner County, ND. The reservoir was built in 1961 for flood control and recreation. Its watershed has a surface area of 7,770 acres of primarily agricultural lands.

Nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators

3.2 Aquifers and Groundwater Quality Various aquifers exist in the Pembina River basin. West of the escarpment, bedrock aquifers occur in fractured portions of shale where water quality ranges from fresh to slightly brackish. East of the escarpment, groundwater in the limestone bedrock is generally too saline for most uses. It is important to note, however, that there are several significant aquifers below the escarpment in the valley – Icelandic, Winkler, and Edinburg – in which the quality of water is high. On and above the escarpment, sand and gravel aquifers are widely distributed. Recharge of sand and gravel aquifers generally occurs locally and water quality is therefore generally good. Groundwater quality tends to decrease where recharge water is in contact with clay and till or where recharge is from saline aquifers.

3.3 Water Quality Reports and Studies A document prepared by the USGS in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation gives a

19

DRAFT

statistical summary of water-quality data for the Pembina River at Neche, North Dakota and at the Tongue River at Akra, North Dakota, collected October 1971 through April 2001 (Macek, 2002). Considering the impact the Tongue River may have as it flows into the Pembina River, significant differences include the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen and the concentrations of nitrogen as nitrate and dissolved fluoride, carbon dioxide, and manganese. A 2002 Manitoba Conservation Report indicates that total nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the Pembina River have varied greatly over the last decade from 66-1,623 tons/yr (60-1472 tonne/yr) and 9.3-356 tons/yr (8.3-323 tonne/yr), respectively (Bourne, 2002). The 2001 report gave flow-adjusted results, showing an increasing trend of 52% in total phosphorus in the Pembina River from 1974 to 2000 (Jones, 2001). Total nitrogen data was not presented. Severe limits to fish production, due to lack of oxygen, were found by a Pembina Valley Conservation District report (PVCD, 1997). Citing historical accounts of a once vibrant and productive fishery, the greatest concern mentioned is that of water quality. Issues were related to current land use practices in the area, including agriculture practices, municipal infrastructure, and water retention structures. State Designated Use (DU) data from EPA for the North Dakota portion of the Pembina River basin encompasses the Pembina River, from the international border to its confluence with the Red River of the North, the Tongue River, the Little North and Little South Pembina Rivers and the Snowflake Creek watershed (EPA, 2004). The DU classifications are Agricultural, Fish and Other Aquatic Biota, Industrial, Municipal and Domestic, Recreation, and Wildlife. All streams listed are designated for use agriculturally, biologically, industrially, and recreationally. Exceptions are the Pembina River, from its confluence with the Tongue River to its confluence with the Red River, and the Tongue River, from about ten miles downstream of Bathgate to its confluence with the Pembina River. These segments are designated for municipal and domestic use instead of industrial use and also have a wildlife classification. 4.0 CAUSES/SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS

4.1 Agricultural Runoff Extensive agriculture is the main source of water quality problems within the Pembina Basin from runoff of sedimentation and nutrients from cultivated fields and manure from livestock (MB, 2004). The dramatic increase in pesticide and nutrient application to agricultural land began during World War II (1939-1945). This period brought federal work programs that increased the demand for farm products, encouraging innovative agricultural techniques such as the use of new pesticides and fertilizers to increase productivity (ND, 2004). What was not realized at the time was the impact these applications would have on water quality downstream as excess nutrients and pesticides not consumed by the crop travels with run-off water from precipitation or snowmelt into rivers and streams. Nutrients

20

DRAFT

Eutrophication is the nutrient enrichment of a surface waterbody from natural and human sources (Jones, 2001). The major nutrients contributing to eutrophication are nitrogen and phosphorus. Nutrient enrichment can result in excessive growth of algae and macrophytes in surface waters leading to oxygen depletion and fish kills, decreased biodiversity, taste and odor problems, increased water treatment costs, and blue-green algae toxin production (if present). Because of the high agricultural use of the land, much of the nutrients added for crop improvement, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, can seep into the groundwater and travel to waterbodies downstream. Nitrogen and phosphorus can also originate from fertilizers and animal wastes. According to a USGS study of the Red River Basin, high phosphorus concentrations in the Pembina River result from agricultural practices and runoff from the steep terrain in the Pembina basin (Tornes, 1997). Sediment Sedimentation is largely an issue due to the reoccurrence of flooding throughout the basin. Some of the soil eroded by water flowing through forests and fields is deposited downstream, with the remainder flowing directly to waterways (MC, 1995). The Pembina River was found to have the highest concentrations and yields of suspended sediment in the Red River Basin mostly due to erosion (Tornes, 1997). Increased sedimentation is also caused by over-cultivation or channelization. The many irrigation and water diversion projects in the region, designed to protect farmland, can be major sources of sedimentation. Other concerns with respect to sedimentation include loss of habitat. Sediments can bury gravel and pebble bottoms, used by stoneflies and some species of mayfly (MC, 1995). Once silted over, the sites are no longer suitable for these organisms. Sedimentation also destroys the sites for many fish species such as walleye, trout and bass that require coarse sands and gravel for spawning purposes. This loss can therefore affect the commercial and sport fisheries as well. Pesticides Indirect contamination of surface water can occur when pesticides are transported with runoff water, either dissolved in the water or adsorbed by sediment particles (MC, 1995). The contamination of groundwater by pesticides is a threat to the prairie environment, as well; however, little is known about how pesticides migrate from their intended target, and what impacts they have on water quality (S&E, 2001). Soil scientists agree that certain preferential flow routes, such as fractures in the ground, wormholes and other pathways, can cause pesticides to leach more rapidly into groundwater than might be inferred from their physical and chemical properties.

4.2 Influence of Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) AFOs are agricultural operations where animals, feed, manure, dead animals, and production operations are generally congregated on a small land area. A variety of potential pollutants are generated in a concentrated place. For example, an average open feedlot can deposit up to 3000 times the amount of manure per acre per year compared to animals on typical open rangeland (TCPS, 1995). Animal waste and wastewater can then enter water bodies from spills or breaks of waste storage structures (due to accidents or excessive rain), and non-agricultural application of

21

DRAFT

manure to crop land (AFO, 2002). These holding ponds may leach into the soil, eventually contaminating groundwater (TCPS, 1995). The waste contains pathogens, chlorides and potassium salts, high levels of nitrogen, and fecal coliform. In addition, the soil in these areas can also undergo compaction, diminishing the capacity to absorb water and increasing run-off and carrying dissolved pollutants to rivers and streams. 5.0 WATER NEEDS AND EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES

5.1 Water Demand Water consumption in the Pembina River basin was estimated to be approximately 1.7×109 gal/yr (6.4×109 L/yr) for the years 2000/2001. A breakdown of calculations is given in Table 5. The total value includes public supply and domestic use, and use for livestock, commercial entities, industry/manufacturing, and irrigation. North Dakota data was obtained from the USGS Water Use data, available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse. Manitoba data was calculated and estimated from population, livestock, industrial, commercial, and irrigation data provided through the Census of Canada, Census of Agriculture from Statistics Canada, and The Atlas of Canada – Water Consumption provided by Natural Resources Canada. Rates for water use were estimated from average water use values for home and agriculture (PSU, 2004). Past and recent data was collected and it was estimated that water use within the basin has grown at an average rate of 1% per year over the last five years. Should the trend continue, water consumption could reach 3×109 gal (11×109 L) annually by the year 2050. Table 5. Estimated Projection of Water Demand for the Pembina River Basin

2001 Annual Water Use 2050 Annual Projection Manitoba Gallons (Liters) ×106 Gallons (Liters) ×106

Estimated change/yr

Population 464 (1755) 310 (1174) -0.8%Livestock 412 (1561) 1433 (5426) 2.5%Industrial/Commercial 82 (309) 134 (508) 1%Irrigation 66 (248) 711 (2691) 4.9%Total 1023 (3873) 2589 (9800) 1.9%

2000 Annual Water Use 2050 Annual Projection North Dakota Gallons (Liters) ×106 Gallons (Liters) ×106

Estimated change/yr

Public supply 352 (1331) Domestic, ground-water 179 (676) Industrial 47 (180) Irrigation 17 (63) Livestock 66 (250) Total 660 (2500) 209 (791) -2.3%Basin total 1683 (6373) 2798 (10,591) 1.0%

Despite the decrease in population, water usage has been increasing from growth in agricultural irrigation and livestock population in Manitoba. Irrigation water used on the northern portion of the basin has increased 5% per year over the last five years, and water for livestock has increased

22

DRAFT

by 2.5% per year. Conversely, the overall water use on the southern portion of the basin has been decreasing.

5.2 Water Supply Supply data for the Pembina River basin in limited. According to Statistics Canada, the basin uses over 40% of its available surface fresh water. Lake and reservoir levels, summarized in Table 6 below, were identified by Manitoba Water Stewardship. Table 6. Water quantity data for selected lakes and reservoirs in the Pembina basin (MWS, 2004; MB, 2004).

Level Range Target level Lakes ft (m) ft (m)

Pelican Lake, MB 1346.0-1353.5 (410.26-412.55) 1350.0-1351.5 (411.48-411.94)

Rock Lake, MB -- 1328-1330 (404.8-405.4) Storage Capacity Reservoirs acre-ft (hectare-m) Feb '04 Supply Status

Goudney - Pilot Mound, MB 454 (5.60) 46% Killarney - Killarney, MB 7351 (90.67) 93% Manitou (Mary Jane) - Manitou, MB 1153 (14.22) 87%

More information is required about the streamflows and lake levels necessary to sustain the aquatic ecosystem. For example, if water supply demand was limited to surface waters, the current demand would consume 6% of the rivers and creeks listed, using median flow rates. The projected growth would consume 10%. It is important to determine the point at which water consumption from human actions infringes on the health of the waterbody. In addition, without water, no new wet industries can be established in the Pembina Valley. In fact, the Valley lost a potential wet industry to Alberta a few years ago solely on the basis of water supply (Acres, 2001). An acceptable balance should be determined.

It is important to keep in mind that the region of the Pembina basin also has a history of extreme drought. A drought around 1200-1400 reduced agricultural production by farming peoples and in 1804-1805, a great drought was experienced in the entire Red River Valley, affecting the planted crops and causing prairie fires (Ericksmoen, 1989; Fromhold, 1994). The year 1929 was one of the driest on record, followed by continuing drought conditions throughout the 1930s, known as the Dirty Thirties or the Dust Bowl. Another major drought was recorded again in 1988 (Ericksmoen, 1989), with drought conditions continuing until 1991.

6.0 FLOODING HISTORY Floods are a natural and common occurrence along the entire length of the Pembina River. Pembina River flooding is most often associated with rapid spring snowmelt. On the tributaries in the plateau region, major flooding can also result from intense rainstorms. Floods cause

23

DRAFT

extensive property damage and in some cases prohibit planting during the growing season or result in reductions in crop yields due to delays in planting. Therefore, a dispute exists between North Dakota and Manitoba concerning the management of Pembina River flood waters along the International Boundary. It has continued for more than five decades, and despite cooperative work between federal, state and local governments, various entities have not yet been able to reach a solution to the long-standing problem. The PRBAB and the International Red River Board (IRRB) prepared a situation analysis report to recommend strategies for moving towards a resolution (Halliday, 2004). The following is a summary from that report with additional complimentary data.

6.1 Pembina River Flooding Historic accounts mention major floods in 1882, 1897 and 1916, while the flood in 1904 is documented in the instrumental record. In the latter half of the 20th century, other significant floods have occurred on the Pembina River downstream of the escarpment, with 1997 having the most severe flood event. The top five recorded flows at various locations on the Pembina River are given in Table 7. The natural capacity of the river at Walhalla is about 4,000 cfs (113 m3/s). Channel capacity near Neche, about 20 mi (32 km) downstream of Walhalla, is slightly less at about 3500 cfs (99 m3/s). Because of the loss to overland flow during floods and attenuation of the flood wave, recorded peak flows on the main channel at Neche are lower than at Walhalla. Since the river bed in the vicinity of Neche is at, or slightly below, the elevation of the land around it, floodflows breaking out of the main stem of the Pembina River move naturally overland into the Tongue River watershed to the south, or into the Aux Marais basin on the north, and into Manitoba. With the current structures in place, much of the breakout flow is forced to flow to the east. Natural levees built up along the river channel over centuries of flooding impede the movement of flood water back into the channel. Table 7. Peak streamflows for the Pembina River (http://nd.water.usgs.gov; Williams, 2000). Location Walhalla Neche Windygates

Rank cfs (m3/s) Year cfs (m3/s) Year cfs (m3/s) Year 1 22500 (637) 1997 15,100 (428) 1997 13700 (388) 1997 2 20400 (578) 1950 10,700 (303) 1950 11500 (326) 1974 3 13800 (391) 1974 10,300 (292) 1974 8170 (231) 1969 4 10200 (289) 1970 9,500 (269) 1979 7420 (210) 1995 5 10200 (289) 1971 8,500 (241) 1995 6570 (186) 1996

6.2 The 1997 Flood

The 1997 flood was the largest on record for the lower Pembina River, experiencing a double peak. This common, yet not typical, occurrence was due first to the passing of runoff from the lower portion. After dropping, three days later the peak rose again, fed by runoff from upstream reaches of the river. What was unusual was that the peaks on the Pembina and the Red Rivers coincided at their confluence. The peak runoff from the Pembina River has typically passed by the time the peak on the Red River reaches the International Boundary. In addition, the flows on the Red River were around ten times that of the Pembina River. As a result, the flow of the

24

DRAFT

Pembina River was reversed for a short distance until it joined overland flow from the Red River and moved northward west of Interstate-29 and across the border into Manitoba.

6.3 Pembina River Flood Control Past Projects Prior to 1960, several studies had been undertaken unilaterally in the US and Canada for the purposes of providing water management in the lower Pembina River basin. These studies revealed that any potential project could not be justified economically unless both countries participated. In 1967, the IJC recommended the construction of two reservoirs to provide flood control, irrigation and water supply to both the Manitoba and North Dakota portions of the basin. The Pembilier dam site would be located immediately upstream of Walhalla and provide 110,000 acre-ft (14,000 hectare-m) of flood storage. The Pembina dam site would be upstream of Windygates and be used entirely for irrigation and water supply. Based primarily on irrigation benefits, the cooperative project met economic tests. As part of a Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration study conducted in the 1980s, the feasibility of Pembina dam near Kaleida was considered. The results showed a relatively high cost of the project and the option was no longer pursued by PFRA. In a 1976 USACE report, the construction of a larger Pembilier dam than had been suggested by the IJC was recommended. Of the total 147,000 acre-ft (18,100 hectare-m) storage capacity, the reservoir would use 128,000 acre-ft (15,800 hectare-m) exclusively for flood control. The report also indicated that the project would “relax social pressures surrounding the existing diking problems along the international border.” No action was taken following the USACE report, although the ND State Legislature and the ND Senate supported the proposal. In 1983, the USACE revisited its 1976 findings. The drainage area contributing to the project and the probable maximum flood were larger, costs were higher and benefits lower than originally calculated. During its 1976 investigation, the USACE also examined the feasibility of a floodway to provide flood protection downstream of Walhalla. One option, a 3,500 cfs (99 m3/s) diversion from three miles east of Walhalla, north to the International Boundary then east to the Red River was considered to be marginally economically feasible. However, it was not acceptable to the local people. The 1983 USACE study examined a 21-mile long floodway from six miles west of Neche to the Red River. This new proposal had a positive benefit/cost ratio and suggested the capacity to be 2,000 cfs (57 m3/s). However, local objections to the plan were similar to those expressed in 1976, including the loss of farmland to the channel, the relatively low level of flood protection being provided, inconvenience to farmers with land on either side of the channel and the lack of water supply and recreational opportunities. The engineering consulting firm Acres International, contracted by the Lower Red River Valley Water Commission, considered four options for the Pembina River: a no project base case, the Pembilier dam and Reservoir, Pembina dam combined with the Boundary Floodway, and a smaller Pembilier dam and Floodway. The benefit-cost ratios for the three flood control options were found to be 0.77, 0.65 and 0.74, respectively (Acres, 2001). At about the same time the North Dakota State Water Commission examined alternatives for additional storage in the

25

DRAFT

Pembina basin. These included depression storage, Pembina dam, Pembilier dam, and Rock and Swan Lakes. The review concluded that a single purpose project for flood storage was not feasible, but suggested considering a multipurpose project based on municipal supply, irrigation, recreation, and other needs. In the early 1990s Manitoba constructed the Pelican Lake Enhancement Project to improve recreational opportunities on Pelican Lake. Pelican Lake levels are artificially controlled through a diversion channel from the Pembina River at the southeast end of the lake. Rock Lake, downstream of the Pelican Lake outlet, has a weir on its outlet to maintain water levels for recreation. There is ongoing controversy concerning an appropriate target level and the timing of releases. However, a study found the effect of the project on the lower Pembina to be negligible and that operation to provide flood control benefits would compromise its lake stabilization purpose. Current Mitigation and Status of Issues West of the escarpment, flood damage is mainly confined to the valleys of the main stem and tributaries where it affects roads and drainage infrastructure and causes channel erosion and stream sedimentation problems. Natural drainage is poor on the plateau and some artificial drains have been constructed in this region. East of the escarpment, drainage on the flat valley floor is also poor. In an attempt to solve the drainage problems here, an extensive infrastructure of ditches has been constructed to receive local runoff as well as overflow waters from river channels and coulees from higher land to the west. Other projects are summarized below. Dams There are a considerable number of successful, small projects in the Pembina basin, providing local as well as basinwide benefits. Figure 8 illustrates the location of existing dams in the Pembina River basin recorded in MB and ND databases.

Figure 8. Dams and water retention structures in the Pembina River Basin The Road-Dike The road-dike, approximately 15 mi (24 km) in length, was constructed over many decades along the International Boundary on the eastern portion of the Pembina basin. An agricultural drainage

26

DRAFT

standard of a one in eight-year flood, approximately the channel capacity of the Pembina River, was applied to the stream crossings of the international boundary following recommendations made by a 1973 federal-state-province Water Resources Committee report. Six drains, or crossings, exist along the boundary from a point six miles west to Walhalla to the Red River. Lower Pembina Dikes All dikes from the city of Pembina to Leroy were removed during the period between 2000 and 2003. The only dikes remaining in the lower basin are at the city of Pembina, at Neche and a small private dike located upstream of Neche. The Neche community is currently protected by a non-federal levee and a cutoff channel that bypasses the Pembina River loop closest to the city. USACE is proposing a protection project consisting of an earthen levee, interior drainage works and modifications to the bypass channel. Plans and specifications are expected to be completed in fiscal year 2005. The Pembina Flood Control Project comprises a ring dike consisting of an earthen levee and concrete floodwall designed to achieve a flood protection for the city of Pembina corresponding roughly to the 100-year flood. Steps are being taken to re-align the dike to ease the constriction, as present alignment of the levee encroaches on the floodplain, which may result in decreased water levels upstream of Pembina. South of the Pembina River is an emergency earthen levee that remains from 1997 flood. Rural Residence Flood-proofing in Lower Basin Following the 1997 flood there was considerable effort devoted to moving, raising or diking rural residences to flood-proof them against a similar flood, roughly a 100-year flood. North Dakota initiated a rural ring-diking program. There has not been a request for funding under the ND program although some individuals may have flood-proofed their structures without drawing on the program. Manitoba offered flood protection to individual homes and businesses under a federal-provincial program, and a significant number of structures on the Manitoba side of the basin are flood-proofed. 7.0 FLOOD HAZARDS

7.1 Flood Risk Flood damages result from direct economic losses such as damage to buildings and infrastructure, in addition to many intangibles such as the threat to human life, human misery, community disruption and threats to the quality of water supplies (Halliday, 2004). Agriculture suffers in numerous ways: damage to buildings; losses of stored grains and other products; loss or damage to stored agriculture input products; and the loss of valuable topsoil through erosion, sedimentation or salinization. Crop seeding may be delayed or lost altogether, resulting in lower yields at harvest. Crop management techniques following a flood may require compensation or additional inputs of fall-applied fertilizers and herbicides lost to the flood waters.

7.2 Damage Potential

27

DRAFT

The Acres project referred to in Section 6.3 included a USACE prepared evaluation of flood damages and analysis of various options for development on the Pembina River (Acres, 2001). Although the study region was restricted to the basin from Walhalla to Pembina, many findings could be generalized for the entire basin. For instance, crop and soil damages comprise 84% of costs incurred from flooding. Although damages to the soil can be twice as costly as damages to crops, crop damages can affect up to 85% of the flooded lands. Soil damage includes gully erosion, sheet erosion and sediment deposition. Damage can vary in intensity depending on the depth and extent of the erosion. Gully erosion and sedimentation damages are the most severe as the land cannot be planted until they are physically restored, generally not occurring until the following year. Gully erosion covers about 10% of the average annual area flooded. Approximately one-fourth of this area can be severely damaged to the point of yield reductions for 9 years following the flood, after which yields average 95% of pre-flood yield (Acres, 2001). Sediment deposition affects about 5% of the average annual area flooded and usually prevents planting in the year of its occurrence. One-fourth of this area is damaged in such a manner that no crop can be grown for the flood year or the following year. Crop yields return to 100% after three more years have past. Sheet erosion occurs on approximately 40% of the average annual area flooded. Land that is eroded in this manner can still be planted the same year that a flood occurs. However, planting will be delayed if flooding occurs during normal planting time. Consequently, yield losses on these acres result from both the erosion and delayed planting. Additional costs for other agricultural damages (damage to farmstead structures, farm machinery, livestock, stored crops, etc.), damages to transportation infrastructure and urban damages represent the remainder of the estimated flood damage. The total damages estimated for the region studied, i.e., encompassing about a quarter of the basin land area, were US$1,544,000 or CAN$2,254,000 (Acres, 2001).

7.3 Flooding Impact A list of the maximum peaks for the streams measured is given in Table 8. As mentioned in Section 6.2, the Pembina River experienced a double peak in 1997. On April 22, during the initial peak of 12,800 cfs (362 m3/s) recorded at Neche, backwater occurred from ice to generate a maximum gage height of 24.51 ft (7.47 m) (Halliday, 2004; Williams, 2000). The probability of flooding for the various streams and locations in the basin is given in Figure 9.

28

DRAFT

Table 8. Peaks for Streams in Pembina River Basin (http://nd.water.usgs.gov; Williams, 2000).

Max. Peak Max. Gage Height Stream/Location cfs (m3/s) Date ft (m) Date

Pembina River – Windygates, MB 13,700 (388) 26-Apr-97 1,122.27 (342.07) 26-Apr-97

Pembina River – Walhalla, ND 22,500 (637) 26-Apr-97 19.20 (5.85) 18-Apr-50

Pembina River – Neche, ND 15,100 (428) 27-Apr-97 24.51 (7.47) 21-Apr-97Tongue River – Akra, ND 11,800 (334) 18-Apr-50 48.70 (14.84) 18-Apr-50Snowflake Creek – Snowflake, MB 2,710 (77) 12-Jul-97 1,232.08 (375.54) 24-Apr-97

Little South Pembina River – Walhalla, NDa 6,600 (187) 25-Apr-70 13.95 (4.25) 25-Apr-70

Mowbray Creek – Mowbray, MB 1,470 (42) 23-Apr-97 1534.83 (467.82) 21-Apr-97a1997 data not available; discharge has been affected by regulation or diversion since 1971.

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Maximum instantaneous flow (cfs)

Exce

edan

ce p

roba

bilit

y

Pembina River –Neche, ND

Pembina River –Walhalla, ND

Pembina River –Windygates, MB

Tongue River –Akra, ND

Snow flake Creek– Snow flake, MB

Mow bray Creek– Mow bray, MB

1

1000

100

10

Recurrence interval (yrs)

Figure 9. Annual high discharge of selected streams in the PRB (Williams, 2000; Halliday, 2004)

8.0 WETLANDS Wetlands are "a transitional area between terrestrial and aquatic systems where water is the dominant factor determining types of plant growth and nature of soil development" (Gomes, 1998). They are classified into four categories: temporary, seasonal, semi-permanent and permanent. Water resides for brief periods during spring or summer in a temporary wetland.

29

DRAFT

Water will remain in a seasonal wetland through much of the summer but will evaporate or seep through the soil by the end of the season. A semi-permanent wetland is similar, holding water throughout the season, possibly becoming dry every few years. Although a permanent wetland holds water all year, the wetland classification remains even when no water is on the surface during a dry year or period. Wetlands in the region of the Pembina basin were formed by receding and melting glaciers, leaving large pits in the ground (Gomes, 1998). These wetlands fill during spring from snow melt runoff, or during summer rain storms. Therefore, about half the wetlands in the basin are seasonal wetlands, the remainder temporary or semi-permanent (Reynolds, 1997). Because of the depressions in the land, the area is also referred to as the “prairie pothole” region. The region extends through several states in both the US and Canada. The value of wetlands is seen in the diversity of functions they perform. These include groundwater recharge and flooding prevention, filtration of pollutants and prevention of soil erosion, habitat for a wide variety of species, and an avenue for commerce and recreation.

8.1 Recharge and Flooding These Prairie Pothole wetlands in the basin are important to local and regional water cycles (Young, 1992). They collect and retain seasonally high waters common in the spring and after heavy rains, providing a natural buffer against flooding and a natural form of aquifer recharge (SW, 2004). The water slowly percolates down through the wetland bed, slowing the flow of surface water run-off, thus reducing the impact of flooding and recharging groundwater supplies (DUC, 2004).

8.2 Water Quality and Erosion Wetlands improve water quality by filtering surface water containing pollutants, organic waste or high sediment loads (Gomes, 1998). Vegetation growing in wetlands removes nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, suspended matter, and other pollutants, purifying the water before reaching river and lake systems (Leier, 2004). Because of their natural purification qualities, artificial wetlands are now being used to treat wastewater from municipal, agricultural, and industrial sources (SW, 2004). Wetland vegetation further has the potential to improve the environment by acting as a sink for greenhouse gases (DUC, 2004). It also forms buffers that separate land-use activities from water bodies. A wetland located between a river and high ground will buffer the shoreline from excessive wave action (Gomes, 1998). They collect soil suspended in runoff and reduce sediment traveling to streams and lakes, improving water quality (SW, 2004). The groundwater recharged by wetlands replenishes soil moisture (Young, 1992). Therefore, wetlands assist in the prevention of soil erosion on the prairie and on shorelines as well.

8.3 Biology Wetlands are a valuable habitat for many animal species, providing food, breeding sites, resting areas, nesting materials, rearing sites, molting grounds, and protection from weather and predators (SW, 2004). The Prairie Pothole Region contains the most critical waterfowl breeding

30

DRAFT

habitat remaining in North America. Although, this region accounts for a small percentage of the waterfowl breeding habitat of the continent, almost 70% of the waterfowl nesting in the South reproduce in this region of the Midwest (Young, 1992). Aquatic plants and insects also thrive in wetland environments.

8.4 Commerce and Recreation Wetlands provide farmers and ranchers with supplemental forage, especially valuable during times of drought (Young, 1992). Other venues include commercial and native harvesting of mink, muskrat, beaver and other wetland dependent game; commercial fisheries on wetlands and estuary-dependent species of fish and shellfish; forestry of peatlands softwood and wetlands hardwood, and wild rice and hay harvesting; market gardens or managed peatlands; or peat production for horticulture and energy (NRC, 2004). Wetlands are also aesthetically and recreationally valuable providing areas to view and enjoy wildlife (SW, 2004). Recreational sport fishing and hunting as well as non-consumptive recreation, such as photography, bird-watching, and education, can be enjoyed from wetlands (NRC, 2004).

8.5 Wetland Loss Southern Manitoba, considered a high risk area for wetlands, has lost about 70% of its wetlands since the early 1900s and almost half of North Dakota’s wetlands have been lost between 1780 and the 1980s (SW, 2004; CWN, 2004). The major cause is conversion to agricultural use, accounting for 85% of losses (NRC, 2004). Other activities which displace wetlands are the building of roads, utility rights of way, and the creation of sites for large facilities such as shopping centers and manufacturing plants. Wetlands are often seen as wastelands which need to be drained and developed. For example, there has been increased pressure during the past decade to drain the potholes in the basin on the plateau west of the escarpment for agricultural productivity (Halliday, 2004). However, the loss of wetlands has led to increased flooding of cities, reduction in aquifer recharging, sedimentation, habitat depletion and species decline (Gomes, 1998). When wetlands are removed in areas prone to high salinity, such as the southern portion of the basin, there is also an increase in soil salinization, which reduces crop production (NRC, 2004).

31

DRAFT

9.0 METHODS Methodology for the field and laboratory portion of the WRAS was governed by a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) written for each management area of the basin. The QAPP followed a standard format established by the US EPA for all Section 319 water quality projects where sampling and analysis was involved. Copies of the QAPPs are available from the NDDH or the RRRC. Over the 5-year study a total of 57 locations were monitored in stages from west to east across the basin (Table x).

Table 9. Years that management areas were monitored during WRAS.

Headwaters 2001-2003 Badger Creek/Rock Lake 2001-2004 Cypress Creek/Swan Lake 2001-2004 Snowflake/Mowbray Creeks 2002-2004 Lower Pembina 2003-2004

Monitoring sites, shown in Figure 12, include in-stream sites, sites below impoundments outlets and sites within impoundments in the watershed. Collections at each site included water for water quality analysis, stage and discharge measurements, data on field condition parameters, channel cross-section and sediment size measurements, and riparian and stream condition assessments. A variety of entities were involved in the collection of monitoring information including the Red River Regional Council (RRRC), Turtle Mountain Conservation District (TMCD), the Pembina Valley Conservation District (PVCD), Towner County Soil Conservation District (TSCD), the Pembina County Soil Conservation District (PSCD), the US Geologic Survey (USGS), and Manitoba Water Stewardship. The majority of water quality and discharge estimates were collected by volunteers and part-time staff of the Conservation Districts and Soil Conservation Districts. The USGS collected discharge and water quality measurements above and below Senator Young and Renwick Dams in the Tongue River Watershed. The University of Manitoba completed a study of aquatic invertebrates across the watershed in cooperation with the PVCD and the RRCC. Details on monitoring and assessment activities are described below. Water Quality: Stream water samples were collected by staff from Conservation and Soil Conservation Districts during the open water period (spring and summer). Sampling frequency was stratified to coincide with the typical hydrograph for the region (Table 10). Samples were collected more frequently in the spring (April - June) and less frequently in the summer and early fall (July - October). Grab type water samples were collected from accessible locations along the river, frequently at either bridges over the river, or below culverts. Samples in shallow sites were collected by hand with a sample bottle.

32

DRAFT

Table 10. Planned sampling frequency for monitoring sites.

Sampling Period Collection Frequency

April - May Twice weekly

June Once weekly

July - October Once monthly

Deeper water samples were collected with a simple weighted open-mouthed sampler that allowed water to slowly bubble into a collection bottle as it was lowered through the water column. Sampling followed NDDH Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the collection and preservation of stream and river grab samples for chemical analysis (Section 7.10; NDDH, 2003). The USGS collected water samples at five sites for analysis of the parameters listed below with the addition of a suspended sediment size analysis. Water samples were collected following an Equal Width Increment (EWI) procedure as described in “Collection of water samples; Chapter 4, Section 4.1" (Wilde, et. al. 1999). Sampling frequency followed the schedule for field discharge measurements at the sites. Analysis of samples was completed by the NDDH laboratory. Lake water samples were collected in Renwick Reservoir by Iceland State park staff on a near monthly basis. Sampling could not be carried out every month due to changes in park staff and difficulties during fall freeze and spring thaw on the lake. Three stations were established on the lake to sample the two shallow arms on the upper end and the deepest point near the dam. Samples were collected during open water and through the ice in winter. Field parameters measured at each station included dissolved oxygen, temperature and Secchi disk. Dissolved oxygen and temperature data were collected with YSI Model 550 DO meter at half-meter intervals. Secchi disk readings were collected at each station following NDDH SOPs (Section 7.7; NDDH, 2003). Water samples were taken at the shallow, intermediate, and deep depths of the lake. Only shallow and deep samples were collected in the north and south arms of the lake, as the average depth was only several feet. A Beta-bottle was used to collect a 1-liter water sample from each of the depths. The bottle was triple rinsed before collecting the sample with lake water. Plankton and Chlorophyll samples were collected and filtered according to NDDH SOPs (Section 7.8; NDDH, 2003). At all of the sites, water was collected in HDPE bottles supplied by NDDH that were triple rinsed with water from the stream or lake prior to filling. The samples were preserved following the required method for the analysis and chilled for storage and transport. A field duplicate sample was also collected for each sampling event at one of the sites chosen randomly. Samples were shipped to the NDDH Consolidated Laboratory for analysis. Analyses completed on the water samples included: ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform counts. Lake water samples were additionally analyzed for chlorophyll-a and phytoplankton. The NDDH

33

DRAFT

Consolidated Laboratory is EPA certified and follows standard procedures for the above listed analyses. Stage/Discharge: Stage and velocity measurements were collected for many of the stream sampling sites. CD and SCD staff measured stage using a measuring tape from a surveyed point on a bridge or from the top of a culvert. Where there was no bridge or culvert, water depth may have been measured at intervals across the channel. At some sites, velocity was estimated by timing a float traveling a specific distance down the river. Velocity was also measured at many sites with a Global Water Flow Probe model FP101. An average velocity was collected within culverts and at multiple points across open channels. The velocity meter was held at 60% of the water depth for at least 30 seconds to capture the highest velocity. In the Lower Pembina and Tongue River management area discharge was calculated in the culverts for several events in the spring and summer. Stage-discharge curves were developed for the culverts and used to calculate daily mean discharges at each site. At some locations in the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management area, discharge was calculated from field measurements by Manitoba Water Stewardship. Field measurements and discharge calculations followed SOPs and methods detailed in NDDH’s Standard Operating Procedures For Field Samplers (Sections 7.12 and 7.14; Wax 2001) or standard procedures of Water Stewardship. USGS maintains a series of river stage gaging stations in the Lower Pembina River Basin at the Little South Pembina, the Pembina at Walhalla and Neche and on the Tongue River below Renwick Dam. In addition to these locations, the USGS collected stage measurements at five sites in the Tongue River watershed. At both the permanent and temporary sites the USGS uses pressure transducers attached to data logging units and standard staff gages mounted in the channel. Data loggers recorded stage every 15 minutes during the ice free period. Velocity was measured at the five sites several times during the ice-free period. Measurements were more frequent in the spring during times of higher flow. Velocity was measured at 20 point across the channel using a Price AA current meter. Velocity measurements were used to calculate a daily mean discharge. Discharge was correlated with stage to create stage-discharge curves for each site. Most daily mean discharges were calculated using the curve developed for each site. Field measurements and discharge calculations followed SOPs and methods described in General procedure for gaging streams. (Carter and Davidian 1968) Sediment Analysis: An analysis of sediment size both in the channel and in the suspended load was carried out at many of the sites. Data collected from sites in Manitoba were lost and will need to be repeated for a complete basin-wide analysis. Channel bed material “pebble counts” were conducted at nearly all sites in the Pembina Basin by PVCD, RRCC and Water Stewardship staff. The counts followed procedures detailed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland Streams (EPA 1993), and provide a rough estimate of the size distribution of channel bottom sediments. The USGS conducted size analysis on suspended sediment samples collected in Tongue River Watershed and at their permanent gauging sites following protocols detailed in Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment (Edwards and Glysson 1999). This analysis provided information of the size of sediment suspended in stream flow during a variety of discharge events.

34

DRAFT

Visual Assessments: Two types of subjective visual assessments were conducted at the stream sampling sites by PVCD, RRRC, and Water Stewardship staff. The Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (NWCC 1998) was used to assess stream and riparian conditions a short distance (approximately 250 feet) upstream and downstream of each sampling site. A Riparian Health Assessment (RHA) (Fitch et. al. 2001) was also completed on most sites. The RHA was developed by the Cows and Fish Organization in Alberta, Canada to assess the condition of grazed riparian acres. This assessment was also completed a short distance upstream and downstream of the sample reach. It is important to note that only a very small reach of river is evaluated using these protocols and cannot be considered representative of the entire tributary. Sampling sites were chosen primarily with access in mind and therefore were located near bridges, culverts, and near roads. These areas also tend to be more impacted by human activities than other locations in a watershed. In an effort to compensate for this, field technicians took a larger area into consideration when making their evaluation. Both assessments rely on the subjective ranking of various visual parameters that result in a score for each parameter. Parameters assessed include channel and stream bank condition, riparian vegetation, use by cattle, and in-stream and near-stream habitat. Scores can vary slightly based on the assessor’s background and previous experience. Both assessments provide very descriptive information for making ranking decisions, however, the assessor will have the tendency to make comparisons with sites most recently viewed. The assessments do provide a description of the reaches where samples were collected and an indication of potential issues within each management area. Land use/land cover: Land use/land cover data were obtained from the North Dakota State University Extension Service. Their Land Use Classification Project is a partnership venture between North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service (NDASS) and North Dakota State University Extension Service (NDSU). The project is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 319 funds (Non-Point Source Pollution Water Quality Protection). The land use data production is achieved through the Cropland Data Layer Program initiated by the National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) Spatial Analysis Research Section and NDASS. The program produces digital categorized geo-referenced output products using imagery from the Thematic Mapper (TM) instrument on the LANDSAT 5 and the Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) on the LANDSAT 7 satellite (Earth Resources Observation Satellites). Under the program annual statewide land use categorization data have been produced since 1997. The NDSU office provided the land use data for 2002. Because of the manner in which the data are collected, land use information was also available for entire Canadian portion of the basin Aerial Assessment of Riparian Condition: Aerial photography was used to provide an efficient means to assess general riparian conditions along several stream reaches in the Pembina River Basin. This approach was used to rapidly assess long stream reaches to determine where more detailed ground-based assessment work should be focused. Key riparian area characteristics were examined, such as lack of riparian forest cover, agricultural activities infringing on the riparian zone, potential bank instability areas, and excessive erosion. Georeferenced 1:60,000-scale

35

DRAFT

orthophotographs from 1996 were obtained through the Pembina Valley Conservation District and used for this approach in the Canadian portion of the basin. For the U.S. side, 2003 National Agriculture Imagery Program color photography was used to review impaired reaches as defined by the North Dakota Department of Health. These georeferenced images were loaded and viewed in a GIS program. By panning across the photograph and following the river, obvious or suspicious areas were identified and a polygon was digitized around the area. Along the Tongue and Pembina Rivers in North Dakota, 135 sites were identified as having potential impairments. Due to variations in the data sources between the U.S. and Canada, statistics similar to the Canadian effort are not available for the U.S. assessment. Examples of the products created through this assessment effort are shown in Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10. Example of aerial photograph identifying potential riparian impairments in Manitoba.

36

DRAFT

Figure 11. Example of aerial photograph identifying potential riparian impairments along the Pembina River in North Dakota. Aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment: A baseline survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates was completed at 10 sites scattered across the Pembina River Basin. The purpose of the survey was to determine the diversity and abundance of inverts in a variety of habitats and stream types present in the watershed. The resulting data was compared with established metrics for stream health (i.e.: EPT Richness) and will provide baseline conditions in the Pembina River Basin for future studies. Five tributary and five main-stem sites were selected to represent the variety of conditions that exist in the basin. Invertebrate sampling followed EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Project (EMAP) protocols. For this method, a 100 meter reach stream is flagged every 10 meters on opposite sides of the channel. Samples are collected at each flag using a D-frame net. Two sampling methods were used to ensure adequate numbers of individuals. In the first method, a 1-foot square area in front of the D-frame net is agitated to flush inverts downstream into the net. The second method used a back and forth sweeping motion of the net along the bottom for 1 minute. In both cases the net was emptied into a bucket after sampling and the bucket was emptied into sample containers or bags and preserved with alcohol. The samples were eventually preserved with a 10% formalin solution prior to sorting and identification. These samples were sorted and identified by students at the University of Manitoba. Invertebrate sampling at site B1 (Pembina River near Pembina, ND) was conducted as part of a study to determine the effectiveness of three artificial substrates for the collection of invertebrates in non-wadeble streams. The study used three types of substrates: Hester-Dendy substrates, Cottonwood logs with the bark attached, and wood blocks with various slices to create habitat. The substrates were deployed after being tied to a float and concrete block. They were left for 30 to 45 days to allow for colonization. After the colonization period the substrates were collected and placed into plastic bags with a 10% formalin solution. Biology students from the University of North Dakota cleaned the substrates, and sorted and identified the invertebrates.

37

DRAFT

Standardized metrics were used to evaluate the taxonomic data from the sampling. The metrics chosen are general indicators of conditions in a reach. Others metrics could be selected to provide a more watershed-specific evaluation of the data. It should be noted that the 10 sites sampled in this survey are not representative of all of the possible stream habitat types and conditions present in the Pembina River Basin. In addition, the few number of sites samples, the single sampling year, and the lack of reference reaches limits the usefulness of this data.

38

DRAFT

10.0 WATER QUALITY In the spring of 2001, the PRBAB initiated water quality sampling on the Pembina River and many of its tributaries. This effort was aimed at creating a better understanding of water quality characteristics across the Pembina River basin and to possibly identify areas of concern. Figure 12 shows the locations of the 53 sampling sites across the basin. The sites numbers refer to station identification values assigned by the U.S. EPA STORET database. All of the data acquired through this effort have been submitted by the NDDH to the STORET centralized database.

Figure 12. Water quality monitoring sites in the Pembina River Basin

All the samples were collected following established protocols and were submitted to the laboratory at the NDDH for analysis. A standard suit of tests were performed on the samples to produce results for the chemical and physical nature of the water. Of particular importance are the values for nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrate-nitrite, and the physical trait of total suspended sediments. Although the sampling occurred during the ice-free period over 4 years, not all the sites were monitored for all 4 years To provide a means of analyzing and summarizing the data, the information was combined into seasonal averages. The sampling data for the spring months of April, May, and June were combined, and the data collected in the remainder of the year were combined in for a summer value. The spring summary includes the wetter portion of the yearly runoff and incorporates the spring snow melt. Summary information for several of the sampling sites is unavailable for the summer months because no stream flow during this time. There are several instances in the following tables where the average concentration for a particular parameter is quite high with respect to desired levels. These instantaneous peak concentrations are most likely related to storm water discharges that flush large amounts of material into the receiving waters. In areas where these high concentrations reoccur frequently,

39

DRAFT

there is a strong likelihood that the water, landscape and riparian conditions are suffering from mismanagement

10.1 Total Suspended Solids The volume of particles that float in a sample of water is called total suspended solids (TSS). To remain permanently suspended in water (or suspended for a long period of time), particles have to be light in weight (they must have a relatively low density or specific gravity), be relatively small in size, and/or have a surface area that is large in relation to their weight (have a shape like a sheet of paper). The greater the TSS in water, the higher its turbidity and the lower its transparency (clarity). The volume of TSS can be estimated from measurements of turbidity or transparency, but an accurate TSS measurement involves carefully weighing the amount of suspended material from a water sample. To accomplish this, a sample of water is first run through a filter. The filter and the material trapped on the filter are dried in an oven. The dried material is then weighed and the weight of the TSS is determined by subtracting the weight of the filter. TSS is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L; weight of the suspended solids per volume of water). TSS is relatively high for the lower reaches of the Pembina River and its tributaries, reflecting the muddy nature of the soils in the central Red River Valley. The Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines document provides the following statement regarding water quality objectives for total suspended sediment and turbidity: “The previous water quality objective for total suspended solids was expressed as a concentration of 25 mg/L and was intended to not be exceeded at any time. However, most streams, at least in the southern region of Manitoba, have natural concentrations of suspended sediments that range over 200 mg/L, especially during spring run-off. The existing objective, therefore, was very difficult to apply. Other jurisdictions have addressed this issue by expressing ambient quality objectives for suspended sediments as a relative change from natural background. In this regard, it is proposed that the approach developed by British Columbia in 1998 be adopted (B.C. Environment 1998). Natural background is defined as historical, pre-development concentrations, the upstream concentration existing at any given time, or when necessary, the concentration in adjacent, undisturbed water body with similar hydrological and geological properties.” Table 11. Total suspended solids (mg/L) summary data for the Headwaters/Pelican Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385102 16.0 21.0 10.0 18.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 7.7 9.0385103 10.8 15.0 30.5 35.0 16.6 45.0 104.0 192.0 10.0 12.0385106 11.7 21.0 9.0 9.0 21.5 64.0 16.0 16.0 12.7 17.0385107 27.2 78.0 27.5 48.0 13.0 25.0 40.0 48.0 15.0 21.0385108 56.4 168.0 67.5 118.0 33.3 88.0 7.0 7.0 29.2 62.0

Average 24.4 60.6 28.9 45.6 18.9 46.8 35.8 55.0 14.9 24.2Maximum Average 56.4 168.0 67.5 118.0 33.3 88.0 104.0 192.0 29.2 62.0

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

40

DRAFT

Table 12. Total suspended solids (mg/L) summary data for the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385111 16.2 25.0 24.0 24.0 13.8 39.0 6.0 6.0 11.5 18.0 9.3 16.0385112 11.4 17.0 8.3 10.0 8.1 15.0 8.5 9.0 9.3 11.0 27.0 67.0385113 12.5 19.0 23.0 23.0385114 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.4 9.0 7.0 7.0 22.0 22.0385115 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 8.0385116 10.3 30.0 7.0 7.0 18.0 28.0 21.0 21.0385117 9.1 18.0 7.0 7.0 13.3 38.0 22.7 53.0 15.7 28.0385118 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 13.0 21.0 15.3 33.0385119 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 12.0 12.0 13.3 26.0385120 12.7 24.0 28.0 28.0385121 11.3 14.0 32.0 32.0385122 14.3 24.0 10.4 30.0 14.0 14.0 13.0 28.0 7.0 7.0

Average 10.0 9.6 9.2 7.3 12.8 20.0 7.0Maximum Average 16.2 30.0 24.0 24.0 13.8 39.0 8.5 9.0 22.7 53.0 32.0 67.0 7.0 7.0

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 13. Total suspended solids (mg/L) summary data for the Cypress Creek/Swan Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385193 11.2 17.0 7.0 8.0 37.3 52.0385194 9.3 14.0 35.6 95.0 10.7 18.0385195 41.4 190.0 33.0 38.0 26.0 38.0 152.8 523.0385196 11.0 28.0 8.8 12.0 31.3 75.0385197 27.9 83.0 12.5 13.0 61.3 176.0 424.5 1500.0385198 14.1 43.0 9.0 10.0 16.4 24.0 68.5 131.0385199 37.8 152.0385200 40.8 109.0385201 40.9 167.0

Average 19.1 62.5 18.2 20.3 25.8 58.8 93.8 303.0Maximum Average 41.4 190.0 33.0 38.0 61.3 176.0 424.5 1500.0

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 14. Total suspended solids (mg/L) summary data for the Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South Pembina management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385187 32.0 32.0 25.0 45.0 89.0 139.0385188 180.4 1225.0 42.5 44.0 108.0 305.0 1044.8 2500.0385189 47.8 230.0 21.5 54.0 64.2 126.0385190 69.8 215.0 9.5 13.0 43.0 137.0 145.6 341.0385191 12.0 18.0 75.8 185.0 11.7 17.0385192 20.8 47.0 9.0 9.0 33.2 109.0 6.5 8.0385287 141.3 327.0 24.3 30.0 651.2 4400.0 27.3 44.0385290 9.0 11.0 19.0 19.0 44.1 124.0 8.7 15.0385291 7.0 7.0 148.5 647.0

Average 82.5 26.0 43.1 17.4 255.1 13.5Maximum Average 180.4 1225.0 42.5 44.0 141.3 327.0 24.3 30.0 1044.8 4400.0 27.3 44.0

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 15. Total suspended solids (mg/L) summary data for the Lower Pembina and Tongue management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum380011 167.3 349.0 19.7 37.0 937.4 4900.0 199.0 383.0380047 122.0 132.0 53.0 64.0 133.0 305.0 79.0 91.0380112 250.6 861.0385246 25.0 83.0385250 29.5 100.0385255 64.5 290.0385258 27.5 91.0385262 87.8 310.0385280 107.8 240.0385281 76.5 122.0 49.5 70.0 180.2 300.0 30.3 34.0385282 30.5 38.0 16.5 19.0 183.1 837.0 20.3 29.0385283 37.7 79.0385285 462.0 866.0 55.0 778.1 1500.0 1048.3 2606.0385286 538.2 1377.0 80.0 87.0 937.7 1500.0 182.0 206.0385294 222.5 666.0

Average 204.9 45.6 283.2 259.8Maximum Average 538.2 1377.0 80.0 87.0 937.7 4900.0 1048.3 2606.0

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

41

DRAFT

10.2 Phosphorus

e

ff from fields and livestock operations, sediments, storm ater, and wastewater discharges.

to ,

nance of such concentrations may not guarantee at eutrophication problems will not develop.”

Table 16. Phosphorus (mg/L) summary data for the Headwaters/Pelican Lake management area.

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant growth and is generally considered to be the limiting factor for plant growth. However, elevated levels of phosphorus promote excessive plant growthwhich can have detrimental impacts on lakes and rivers. Excessive algal blooms can reduce thtransparency of the river and when the plants and/or algae die; their decay will accelerate thedepletion of oxygen in the water. Phosphorus can be found naturally, but the most common sources in lakes and rivers are runow The North Dakota Department of Health has established an interim guideline limit for phosphorus at 0.1 mg/L because of its potential to create excessive plant growth in the river. TheManitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines document states that “nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, and contributing trace elements should be limited to the extent necessary prevent the nuisance growth and reproduction of aquatic rooted, attached and floating plantsfungi, or bacteria, or to otherwise render the water unsuitable for other beneficial uses. For general guidance, unless it can be demonstrated that total phosphorus is not a limiting factor, considering the morphological, physical, chemical, or other characteristics of the water body, total phosphorus should not exceed 0.025 mg/L in any reservoir, lake, or pond, or in a tributary at the point where it enters such bodies of water. In other streams, total phosphorus should not exceed 0.05 mg/L. It should be noted that mainteth

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385102 0.11 0.32 0.21 0.26 0.10 0.33 0.21 0.25 0.17 0.50385103 0.17 0.48 0.35 0.69 0.29 0.55 0.73 0.79 0.58 1.23385106 0.15 0.46 0.19 0.49 0.13 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.95385107 0.19 0.58 0.22 0.50 0.13 0.22 0.36 0.41 0.45 1.16385108 0.20 0.66 0.23 0.47 0.09 0.16 0.14 0.14 11.02 64.40

AvM

erage 0.15 0.32 2.53aximum Average 0.29 0.55 0.73 0.79 11.02 64.40

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 17. Phosphorus (mg/L) summary data for the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385111 0.11 0.23 0.12 0.28 0.09 0.29 0.11 0.12 0.26 0.64 0.28 0.65385112 0.26 0.44 0.32 0.61 0.22 0.52 0.35 0.36 0.62 1.41 0.41 0.74385113 0.53 0.85 0.80 0.95 0.52 1.15 0.53 0.79385114 0.18 0.37 0.31 0.31 0.23 0.41 0.20 0.27 0.34 0.85 0.43 1.00385115 0.37 0.54 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.74 1.76 0.65 1.23385116 0.17 0.39 0.75 0.75 0.35 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.48 1.15 0.40 0.80385117 0.27 0.38 0.21 0.29 0.22 0.44 0.42 0.45 0.56 1.16 0.39 0.63385118 0.22 0.37 0.86 0.86 0.40 0.43 0.62 0.83 0.42 0.82 0.41 0.41385119 0.22 0.35 1.03 1.03 0.47 0.49 0.77 1.00 0.43 0.93 0.47 0.47385120 0.35 0.50 0.74 0.74385121 0.32 0.41 0.69 0.69385122 0.24 0.37 0.33 0.50 0.25 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.74 0.99 0.38 0.65 0.58 0.59

AvM

erage 0.27 0.53 0.37 0.38 0.56 0.48 0.49aximum Average 0.53 0.85 1.03 1.03 0.80 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.77 1.76 0.74 1.23 0.58 0.59

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

42

DRAFT

Table 18. Phosphorus (mg/L) summary data for the Cypress Creek/Swan Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385193 0.79 0.99 1.11 1.11 0.94 1.54 0.57 0.79385194 0.33 0.78 0.70 2.05 0.47 0.88385195 0.16 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.35 1.02 0.35 0.60385196 0.21 0.34 0.62 1.13 0.32 0.77385197 0.22 0.46 0.18 0.19 0.45 1.24 0.41 0.66385198 0.29 0.63 0.61 0.66 0.68 1.19 0.43 0.85385199 0.40 0.79 0.36 0.41385200 0.56 1.06385201 0.53 0.79

Average 0.33 0.51 0.63 0.45 0.36Maximum Average 0.79 0.99 1.11 1.11 0.94 2.05 0.57 1.06 0.36 0.41

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 19. Phosphorus (mg/L) summary data for the Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South Pembina management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385187 0.43 0.54 0.51 0.91 0.58 1.00385188 0.24 0.69 0.41 0.42 0.47 0.99 0.57 0.93385189 0.35 0.68 0.84 1.04 0.82 1.18 0.43 0.59385190 0.25 0.49 0.76 0.77 0.44 0.70 0.46 0.61385191 0.42 0.48 0.49 0.89 0.30 0.57385192 0.55 0.72 0.21 0.21 0.36 0.60 0.36 0.45385287 0.28 0.57 0.07 0.14 0.57 1.69 0.28 0.40385290 0.71 0.96 1.34 1.63 0.42 0.64 0.50 0.76385291 0.49 0.49 0.38 0.65 0.38 0.66

Average 0.32 0.67 0.52 0.54 0.47 0.37Maximum Average 0.43 0.69 0.84 1.04 0.82 1.18 1.34 1.63 0.58 1.69 0.50 0.76

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 20. Phosphorus (mg/L) summary data for the Lower Pembina and Tongue management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum380011 0.36 1.05 0.09 0.15 0.63 1.44 0.32 0.38380047 0.35 0.61 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.41 0.14 0.14380112 0.32 0.54381275 0.39 0.62 0.21 0.83 0.20 0.20385246 0.15 0.35385250 0.11 0.36385255 0.20 0.45385258 0.15 0.40385262 0.20 0.45385280 0.27 0.37385281 0.15 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.32 0.64 0.13 0.24385282 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.46 0.23 0.52 0.10 0.14385283 0.37 1.11385285 0.50 0.83 0.20 0.26 0.57 0.79 0.65 1.32385286 0.37 0.73 0.20 0.25 0.76 1.45 0.32 0.34385294 0.34 0.64385295 0.24 0.25 0.19 0.23 0.20 0.20385296 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.17 0.17

Average 0.32 0.23 0.30 0.25Maximum Average 0.50 1.11 0.39 0.62 0.76 1.45 0.65 1.32

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

10.3 Nitrates and Nitrites Nitrate and nitrite are forms of nitrogen that result from the bacterial conversion of ammonia. Under aerobic conditions, certain aerobic bacteria convert ammonia first to nitrite then to nitrate, a process called nitrification. Nitrification processes require considerable amounts of oxygen (2.99 mg O2/mg ammonium) and can lead to low dissolved oxygen levels in rivers and lakes. Nitrates are common ingredients in fertilizers and are used in farming as well as lawn maintenance. Nitrates produced or used in excess of the fertilizer needs of the plants can be washed from fields and lawns into the river. They can also be found in effluent discharges from wastewater treatment plants and runoff from animal feedlots. They are important nutrients for

43

DRAFT

plant growth and can create excessive algal and other plant growth in the river. Nitrites are highly toxic, but are readily converted to nitrates and, thus, are relatively short- lived. As early as 1940, it was recognized that consuming waters with high nitrate levels contributed to methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome) in infants, a condition that impairs the ability of blood to carry oxygen to the body. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Primary Drinking Water Standards require that nitrate nitrogen not exceed 10 mg/L in public water supplies. This same value applies to the water bodies of Manitoba Table 21. Nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) summary data for the Headwaters/Pelican Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385102 0.15 0.60 0.05 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.83385103 0.26 0.93 0.05 0.05 0.32 1.11 0.04 0.05 0.83 2.36385106 0.14 0.85 0.26 0.43 0.03 0.03 0.56 1.46385107 0.19 1.10 0.13 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.72 1.94385108 0.19 1.23 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.63 0.87 2.40

Average 0.18 0.05 0.34 0.10 0.66Maximum Average 0.26 1.23 0.05 0.06 0.63 1.11 0.24 0.24 0.87 2.40

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 22. Nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) summary data for the Badger Creek/Rock Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385111 0.47 1.12 0.03 0.03 0.26 1.21 0.03 0.03 1.04 2.88 1.02 2.02385112 0.72 1.20 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.54 0.02 0.02 1.16 2.30 1.26 1.54385113 0.79 1.43 0.08 0.08 1.29 2.55 1.56 1.60385114 0.34 1.50 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.55 1.50 1.01 1.57385115 1.27 2.44 0.72 0.72 1.96 3.70 1.40 2.30385116 0.74 1.49 0.58 0.58 1.01 2.40 1.79 2.33385117 0.76 1.19 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.20 0.87 2.07 1.15 1.38385118 0.67 1.43 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.79 1.34 1.51 1.17 2.82385119 0.78 1.68 0.06 0.06 0.49 1.41 1.44 1.80 1.09 3.13385120 1.10 1.34 4.39 4.39385121 0.74 0.98 3.07 3.07385122 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.99 1.69 0.72 1.55

Average 0.74 0.06 0.35 0.02 1.16 1.64Maximum Average 1.27 2.44 0.13 0.13 0.72 1.41 0.03 0.03 1.96 3.70 4.39 4.39

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2003 20042001 2002

Table 23. Nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) summary data for the Cypress Creek/Swan Lake management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385193 0.25 0.38 1.07 2.07 1.52 2.67385194 0.09 0.22 0.35 1.01 0.56 1.82385195 0.16 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.45 1.32 0.81 2.08385196 0.04 0.13 0.91 2.50 0.49 1.36385197 0.11 0.37 0.08 0.09 0.52 1.15 0.92 1.61385198 0.43 0.86 1.15 2.18 1.29 2.01385199 0.81 1.83385200 0.67 2.10385201 1.20 3.20

Average 0.18 0.05 0.74 0.92Maximum Average 0.43 0.86 0.08 0.09 1.15 2.50 1.52 3.20

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

44

DRAFT

Table 24. Nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) summary data for the Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South Pembina management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum385187 0.59 1.00 0.84 2.46 1.76 3.77385188 0.79 1.65 0.08 0.08 1.14 3.29 1.47 2.38385189 1.02 2.55 0.02 0.02 2.02 4.18 2.54 4.16385190 0.52 2.32 1.57 3.64 1.51 2.80385191 10.03 18.90 1.41 3.41 1.50 1.50385192 0.15 0.53 0.03 0.03 1.59 3.02385287 0.92 2.49 0.09 0.26 2.32 5.12 0.19 0.51385290 0.49 1.88 2.07 4.75 2.83 2.83385291 28.90 28.90 2.00 5.17 0.74 1.18

Average 0.73 0.05 5.12 0.06 1.85 1.31Maximum Average 1.02 2.55 0.08 0.08 28.90 28.90 0.09 0.26 2.54 5.17 2.83 2.83

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

Table 25. Nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) summary data for the Lower Pembina and Tongue management area.

Station ID Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum380011 0.65 1.83 0.03 0.03 1.17 3.04 0.28 0.52380047 0.59 1.16 0.10 0.10 2.19 3.58 0.02 0.02380112 3.45 5.64381275 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.24 0.02 0.02385246 0.50 1.29385250 0.60 1.88385255 2.60 5.56385258 1.21 2.99385262 5.58 21.10385280 0.76 1.54385281 0.13 0.22 0.06 0.06 2.69 4.20 0.21 0.37385282 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.12 2.46 4.41 0.12 0.22385283 0.19 0.35385285 0.51 0.90 0.42 0.42 1.41 2.36 0.57 1.51385286 2.90 4.60 0.10 0.10 1.56 2.64 0.06 0.09385294 3.38 5.99385295 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.02 0.02385296 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.72 0.04 0.04

Average 0.72 0.10 1.77 0.15Maximum Average 2.90 4.60 0.42 0.42 5.58 21.10 0.57 1.51

Spring Summer Spring SummerSpring Summer Spring Summer2001 2002 2003 2004

10.4 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal coliform is the scientific name of a group of bacteria that live in the intestinal track of humans and animals, where they aid in digestion. Fecal coliform themselves are not harmful, but because they can share space in the digestive system with disease-causing types of bacteria, viruses, and protozoans, the presence of fecal coliform bacteria are an indicator that water might contain microbes harmful to human health. Very high levels of fecal coliform bacteria can give water a cloudy appearance and a bad smell. Fecal coliform are plentiful in untreated sewage and on-site septic systems and can also occur at low levels in treated sewage. Fecal coliform occur in the droppings of wild and domestic animals and can be carried to surface waters by runoff or storm sewers. Fecal coliform levels in water are determined by incubating a water sample for 24 hours and then counting the number of bacterial colonies that grew during that time. The unit for reporting fecal coliform is colony-producing units per 100 milliliters of water (CPU/100 mL); this is equal to the number of organisms per 100 mL. The regulatory limit in North Dakota is 200 organisms/100mL of water, which applies only during the recreational season, May 1 to September 30. The regulatory limit in Manitoba is also 200 organisms/100mL of water.

45

DRAFT

Table 26. Summary of instantaneous fecal coliform readings (CPU/100 mL), average (maximum).

Year Month Headwaters/Pelican Lake

Badger Creek/Rock Lake

Cyprus Creek/Swan Lake

Snowflake, Mowbray, Little South Pembina

Lower Pembina and Tongue

2001 April 12.5 (20)2001 May 22.2 (50) 53.3 (180)2001 June 200. (620) 108. (270)2001 July 463.8 (1400) 185.8 (570)2001 August 210. (460) 453.3 (920)2002 April 10. (10) 30. (30)2002 May 15. (20) 300. (770) 38.3 (80) 60. (150)2002 June 116. (180) 51.3 (110) 140. (260) 43.3 (70)2002 July 733.3 (1400) 450. (1100) 495. (830) 433.3 (690)2003 April 20. (30) 143.3 (230) 326.7 (890)2003 June 292.5 (690) 216.7 (420) 183.3 (690) 220. (480)2003 July 167.5 (450) 244.3 (660)2003 August 135. (150) 127.5 (310)2003 September 43.3 (70) 25. (30)

10.5 Loading

Although most water quality standards are based on the concentration of a nutrient or pollutant in a volume of water (mg of phosphorus per liter of water), the total mass of pollutant delivered by a stream has become very important. The amount, or mass, of nutrients present in a stream at a given time is referred to as the stream’s nutrient load. The load of a particular stream is derived from the product of the nutrient concentration (weight or mass per volume of water) and the volume of water flowing in the stream. Nutrient loads are expressed as weight (mass) per time, such as 23 Kg/day or 345 tons/year. A stream with a very low nutrient concentration, but a high flow volume may have the same or similar nutrient load as a stream that has a high concentration of nutrients and relatively low flow. Loading data for the PRB monitoring sites is limited due to the scarcity of flow data at the monitoring sites.

46

DRAFT

Table 27. Summary of instantaneous total suspended solids loading values (Kg/day) StationNumb Sample Count Spring Summer Spring Max SummerMax

385111 10 6353.91 1886.98 14674.18 1886.98385112 10 13731.65 488.79 31795.20 1244.16385113 0385114 2 1470.18 149.47 1470.18 149.47385115 1 72.58 72.58385116 6 304.98 1213.06385117 9 755.70 107.05 2640.73 107.05385118 3 543.41 78.28 748.14 78.28385119 4 357.52 65.32 460.86 65.32385120 3 171.73 250.91385121 3 219.95 236.39385122 3 213.18 408.50385187 1 3129.75 3129.75385188 11 571822.49 18884.88 4805136.00 23493.89385189 8 17092.19 126783.36385190 7 31102.65 1841.62 98452.80 3066.34385193 6 336.07 774.06385194 7 137.51 247.97385195 11 12790.31 6590.94 82933.63 6783.09385196 4 533.50 1826.50385197 10 7726.37 429.45 41033.61 531.27385198 10 2551.49 202.26 14340.67 220.49

Table 28. Summary of instantaneous phosphorus loading values (Kg/day)

StationNumb Sample Count Spring Summer SpringMax SummerMax385111 14 42.55 5.58 155.41 21.62385112 14 259.83 33.19 755.14 125.87385113 7 45.42 99.91385114 11 26.59 9.12 90.42 9.12385115 8 28.45 15.71 78.81 15.71385116 9 5.43 3.71 15.61 3.71385117 14 18.52 1.23 52.52 4.47385118 9 16.41 11.23 45.66 11.23385119 9 11.07 9.61 30.31 9.61385120 5 6.90 11.44385121 3 6.87 10.87385122 11 2.60 0.44 8.80 1.56385187 4 12.92 50.57385188 12 361.25 182.74 2710.49 225.86385189 11 57.25 12.52 291.05 23.00385190 11 61.29 128.07 191.71 176.67385193 9 30.71 10.45 104.07 10.45385194 7 5.21 16.27385195 11 37.67 27.40 182.89 30.17385196 9 4.03 10.96385197 11 46.21 6.28 226.92 7.72385198 11 37.19 14.20 161.08 18.08

47

DRAFT

Table 29. Summary of instantaneous nitrate+nitrite loading values (Kg/day) StationNumb Sample Count Spring Summer SpringMax SummerMax

385111 7 281.64 1.21 747.05 2.36385112 6 1222.17 3.17 2042.50 6.22385113 3 97.24 167.29385114 6 83.59 367.55385115 3 172.96 359.44385116 3 30.00 60.25385117 5 93.44 0.01 174.58 0.01385118 5 74.08 0.52 152.83 0.52385119 5 64.36 0.56 150.67 0.56385120 4 24.25 36.12385121 2 17.80 25.74385122 2 10.97 0.01 10.97 0.01385187 2 49.00 97.80385188 5 2017.11 27.86 6472.22 27.86385189 7 294.63 0.06 1405.64 0.06385190 8 182.92 1062.37385193 3 12.59 17.30385194 6 1.36 3.90385195 11 50.36 4.96 318.64 5.36385196 9 0.66 1.31385197 10 32.48 2.45 168.09 2.46385198 3 114.13 286.81

Bourne and others (2002) reported a trend analysis for total phosphorus using data from 275 water samples collected from 1974 through 1999 at a site located near Windygates, MB. Their analysis showed a significant trend of increase in the flow-adjusted concentrations of total phosphorus in the river, with a calculated increase in the median of the flow-adjusted trend of some 52% for the entire period. They also interpret the results as anthropogenic loading of phosphorus to the river system has increased substantially over the past quarter century. Table 30. Total measured stream TN load (t/yr) at select water quality monitoring stations in Manitoba (Bourne and others, 2002). Stream 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mean

At Emerson 14,020 19,200 18,058 23,206 19,628 21,869 15,085 20,801 18,983At Selkirk 22,121 36,370 34,558 37,871 35,303 33,681 24,459 37,755 32,765

LaSalle 54 152 344 436 183 51 111 565 237Roseau 478 418 899 869 549 969 569 1008 720Rat 76 107 235 438 294 118 184 309 220Pembina 719 1623 1509 1268 1456 623 66 1032 1037

Red River

Red River Tributaries

48

DRAFT

Table 31. Total measured stream TP load (t/yr) at select water quality monitoring stations in Manitoba (Bourne and others, 2002). Stream 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mean

At Emerson 1,708 1,981 2,430 3,666 2,710 2,896 1,874 3,029 2,537At Selkirk 2,661 4,165 4,418 8,176 4,266 5,425 2,782 7,344 4,905

LaSalle 16 47 88 89 40 10 28 97 5Roseau 43 23 52 70 47 69 45 86 54Rat 8 13 28 57 32 11 23 23 24Pembina 107 356 221 252 228 144 9.3 130 181

Red River

Red River Tributaries2

11.0 HYDROLOGY Halliday and others (2004) report that significant floods in the reach downstream of Walhalla have occurred in the spring as a result of snowmelt or heavy rain either combined with, or immediately following, snowmelt. They also state that double peaks occur because of the differences in runoff timing between the upper basin and lower basin. Halliday and others (2004) also report that the natural capacity of the Pembina River at Walhalla is about 4,000 cfs. Channel capacity near Neche, about 20 miles downstream of Walhalla, is slightly less at about 3500 cfs. Because of the loss to overland flow during floods and attenuation of the flood wave, recorded peak flows on the main channel at Neche are lower than at Walhalla. Figure 13 illustrates rainfall graphs for four weather monitoring sites on the U.S. side of the PRB. The hydrologic response to this rainfall can be seen in Figures 14 -17.

Langdon

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1/1/

2001

4/1/

2001

7/1/

2001

10/1

/200

1

1/1/

2002

4/1/

2002

7/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

1/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

7/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

Inch

es o

f Rai

n

Cavalier

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1/1/

2001

4/1/

2001

7/1/

2001

10/1

/200

1

1/1/

2002

4/1/

2002

7/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

1/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

7/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

Inch

es o

f Rai

n

Walhalla

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1/1/

2001

4/1/

2001

7/1/

2001

10/1

/200

1

1/1/

2002

4/1/

2002

7/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

1/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

7/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

Inch

es o

f Rai

n

Rolla

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1/1/

2001

4/1/

2001

7/1/

2001

10/1

/200

1

1/1/

2002

4/1/

2002

7/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

1/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

7/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

1/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

7/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

Inch

es o

f Rai

n

Figure 13. Rainfall graph for four U.S. stations in the Pembina River Basin.

49

DRAFT

USGS 05099600 Pembina River at Walhalla, ND

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

70001/

1/01

4/1/

01

7/1/

01

10/1

/01

1/1/

02

4/1/

02

7/1/

02

10/1

/02

1/1/

03

4/1/

03

7/1/

03

10/1

/03

1/1/

04

4/1/

04

7/1/

04

Dai

ly M

ean

Stre

amflo

w (c

fs)

6/11/2002

4/01/20044/21/2001

Figure 14. Pembina River hydrograph at Walhalla.

USGS 05100000 Pembina River at Neche, ND

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1/1/

01

4/1/

01

7/1/

01

10/1

/01

1/1/

02

4/1/

02

7/1/

02

10/1

/02

1/1/

03

4/1/

03

7/1/

03

10/1

/03

1/1/

04

4/1/

04

7/1/

04

Dai

ly M

ean

Stre

amflo

w (c

fs)

6/12/2002

4/01/2004

4/23/2001

Figure 15. Pembina River hydrograph at Neche.

50

DRAFT

USGS 05099400 Little South Pembina River Near Walhalla, ND

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

70001/

1/01

4/1/

01

7/1/

01

10/1

/01

1/1/

02

4/1/

02

7/1/

02

10/1

/02

1/1/

03

4/1/

03

7/1/

03

10/1

/03

1/1/

04

4/1/

04

7/1/

04

Dai

ly M

ean

Stre

amflo

w (c

fs)

6/10/2002

4/01/2004

4/21/2001

Figure 16. Little South Pembina River hydrograph near Walhalla.

51

DRAFT

Rainfall and Runoff at Walhalla, ND

Date

1/1/

01

4/1/

01

7/1/

01

10/1

/01

1/1/

02

4/1/

02

7/1/

02

10/1

/02

1/1/

03

4/1/

03

7/1/

03

10/1

/03

1/1/

04

4/1/

04

7/1/

04

10/1

/04

1/1/

05

Dai

ly M

ean

Stre

amflo

w (c

fs)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Rai

nfal

l (in

ches

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

cfs inch

Figure 17. Rainfall-runoff relationship at Walhalla.

52

DRAFT

12.0 RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT Riparian habitat assessments conducted in the Pembina River Basin provide some insight to the variability of riparian conditions that exist in the watershed. As noted in the methods section, these assessments are limited in that they only assessed areas adjacent to sampling sites and used a subjective analysis method. In addition to these limitations, the assessment protocols also placed different emphasis on the stream channel and riparian area characteristics that each one considered. The Riparian Habitat Assessment (RHA) from Manitoba’s Managing the Water’s Edge project was adapted from Alberta’s Cows and Fish project for the south-eastern Manitoba. This assessment placed greater emphasis on grazing and their impacts on riparian zone condition. RHA considered factors such as cattle utilization of trees and shrubs, the existence of bare ground and hummocks from cattle trampling, and the intensity of grazing on riparian vegetation. The importance of various parameters was also evident by the weighted scoring system used in the RHA. Categories had potential scores of three, six, or nine depending on how important they were considered to the health of the stream reach. NRCS’s Stream Visual Assessment (SVA) protocol focused more on habitat and in-stream parameters. These included channel embeddedness, appearance of the water, fish and invertebrate habitat condition, and frequency of pools and riffles. SVA protocol did not use a weighted scoring system, with 10 points possible in all categories. Grading of the overall scores was different between the assessments. The RHA considered scores greater than 80% to be “healthy”; better than 60% to be “healthy with problems”; and below 60% to be “unhealthy”. The SVA considered any score above 90% to be “excellent”; between 75 and 89% to be “good”; between 61 and 74% to be “fair”; and below 60% to be “poor”. The result is that sites considered in “fair” and “good” health by the SVA would all be considered “healthy” or “healthy with problems” by the RHA. However, both protocols consider sites scoring below 60% to be in the worst condition. Results of the RHA assessment (Table 32) show that the majority of the sites are “Healthy with Problems.” The degree of problems at the sites varies with some scoring 60% while several others are border-line “healthy” with a score of 79%. The majority of these sites had low scores because the channel had been disturbed or altered. This would be expected at or near road crossings with culverts or bridges where assessment sites were located. Frequent disturbance or alteration of the channel invites invasive species which was also an issue at many of the sites. Some of the sites also received a low score for having an incised channel, which was likely the result of an alteration such as cleaning-out or straightening of the channel. Only three sites were particularly “unhealthy”. The Little South Pembina site at Mt. Carmel scored nearly 60%. It is located at the upper end of Mt. Carmel dam and was assessed during the recent drawdown for repairs to the dam, resulting in a low score. The other “unhealthy” sites have multiple problems. These sites scored low for the reasons listed above, but were additionally impacted by grazing or cropping. Categories with the lowest scores were root mass and bare ground, both the result of season-long grazing or cropping within the streams riparian area. The “Healthy” sites scored high in nearly all categories, with the exception of some lower marks for alteration or disturbance of the channel. These disturbances were typically minor or the site had recovered considerably since the site was last disturbed. The Little South Pembina site near the Brick Mine

53

DRAFT

scored the highest in this assessment, which should not surprise anyone who is familiar with this river reach. The stream drops into the Pembina Gorge at this location and is fast moving with a rocky bottom. The surrounding topography protects this reach from adjacent agricultural development and maintains the diverse, forested riparian zone. This reach of the Little South Pembina is similar to other Pembina River tributaries as they descend the escarpment.

Table 32. Results of riparian health assessment. Riparian Health Assessment Manitoba Riparian Health Council/MHHC

Veg Invasive Tree/ Cattle Woody Root Bare IncisedSite Name Site # Cover Species Disturbed Shrub Utilization Debris Mass Ground Altered Hummocks Channel Total %Possible 6 6 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 3 9 57Lower Pembina Management AreaTongue-Olson 385262 6 5 2 4 3 2 6 6 2 3 9 48 84Tongue-Herzog 385255 6 4 2 4 3 3 4 6 2 3 9 46 81Tongue-Hwy 32&5 385294 6 5 1 6 3 3 6 4 2 3 3 42 74Tongue-Hallson 380112 6 4 2 4 3 3 3 6 2 3 9 45 79Tongue-Goschke 385250 6 3 1 6 3 2 6 4 2 3 9 45 79Tongue-Weiler 385246 6 4 2 6 3 3 6 6 2 3 9 50 88Tongue-Morrison 385258 6 3 2 4 3 3 6 2 4 3 9 45 79Tongue-Cavalier 385282 4 4 2 4 3 2 6 4 2 3 6 40 70Tongue-Bathgate 385281 6 1 2 4 3 3 6 6 0 3 3 37 65Big Slough-at Tongue 385280Tongue-at Pembina 380047 4 1 0 6 3 2 6 6 2 3 3 36 63LSP- at Mt. Carmel 381082 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 9 33 58Little South Pembina 385287 6 5 3 6 3 3 6 4 4 3 9 52 91Pem-Walhalla 0Pem-Neche 385286 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 2 3 9 38 67Pem-RedSnowflake/Mowbray Creek Management AreaMowbray-East 385291 2 4 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 0 3 9 24 53Mowbray-West 385290 4 3 2 n/a n/a n/a 4 4 4 2 9 32 71Snowflake-RushL 385192 4 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 3 4 0 3 9 27 60Snowflake-Hannah 385191 4 4 2 n/a n/a n/a 4 3 0 1 9 27 60Cypress/Swan Lake Management Area n/a n/a n/aCypress-Calvin 385288 2 1 2 n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 3 9 17 38Cypress-west 385202 6 2 3 n/a n/a n/a 6 6 0 3 9 35 78Cypress-at gauge 385199 5 4 2 3 0 0 6 4 6 2 9 41 72Badger Creek/Rock Lake Management AreaHIC-west Hansboro 385119 6 4 1.5 2 3 2.5 5 6 6 3 9 48 84HIC-border culverts 385118 6 2 1.5 4 3 3 2 4 0 4 8 37.5 66

PTS 17/57 23/57 29/57 32/57 34/57 37/57 40/57 46/57 52/57% 30 40 51 56 60 65 70 80 91

Healthy with Problems HealthyUnhealthy Overall, the assessed sites scored much lower using the SVA protocol (Table 33) wherein only three sites scored above “poor.” The highest scoring site was Hidden Island Coulee west of Hansboro, which lost 4 points for embeddedness of channel materials and having fewer than expected number of pools. This site is at the headwaters of the coulee and is well protected by a wide, grassed floodplain and cattail growth that filters the water and provides habitat. Badger Creek at Kinsman Park received a “good” score. This high gradient reach is similar to the Little South Pembina at the Brick Mine. The categorical results for Badger Creek sites are not available at this time. The single “fair” site was on the Tongue River near where it crosses Highway 32 in Pembina County. This site received a similar score with the RHA, loosing points for alteration of the channel, and lack of pools and fish cover.

54

DRAFT

Table 33. Results of stream visual assessment protocol. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Natural Resources Conservation Service

Channel Bank Veg Roots Riparian Noxious Water Riffle Fish InvertSite Name Site # Condition Altered Stability Embedd Cover Wads Width Weeds Appear Embedd Cover Canopy Habitat Pools %Possible 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 100Lower Pembina Management AreaTongue-Olson 385262 7 1 10 1 7 8 10 10 n/a 1 1 1 3 1 44Tongue-Hwy 32&5 385250 8 1 7 n/a 8 9 10 10 7 7 1 10 7 3 63Tongue-Hallson 385246 6 8 9 n/a 8 10 8 10 7 1 1 7 5 1 58Tongue-Weiler 385294 10 1 10 1 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 5 1 58Tongue-Goschke 380112 7 1 10 1 7 10 10 8 10 1 1 1 3 1 51Tongue-Morrison 385258 7 1 8 1 9 10 10 7 7 1 1 10 7 1 57Tongue-Bathgate 385281 5 2 9 3 8 8 5 7 3 2 1 1 3 5 44Tongue-at Pembina 380047 3 3 3 1 9 7 7 8 3 n/a 1 10 2 3 46LSP at Mt. Carmel 381082 8 9 7 n/a 6 8 10 7 3 n/a 1 1 1 3 49Pem-Neche 385286 5 2 5 n/a 7 7 5 7 3 3 1 1 3 3 40Snowflake/Mowbray Creeks Management AreaMowbray-East 385291 3 3 8 7 7 5 2 7 7 3 1 1 1 3 41Mowbray-West 385290 5 5 5 n/a 3 7 5 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 35Snowflake-RushL 385192 2 1 9 1 8 10 6 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 36Snowflake-Hannah 385191 3 2 8 3 7 8 1 7 5 1 1 1 1 1 35Cypress Creek/Swan Lake Management AreaCypress-Calvin 385288 3 7 7 1 3 3 1 3 7 1 1 1 1 1 29Cypress-west 385202 6 3 10 1 8 10 5 3 8 1 1 1 3 5 46Cypress-at gauge 385199 5 7 7 1 5 7 8 5 3 2 1 1 3 7 44Badger Creek/Rock Lake Management AreaHIC-west Hansboro 385119 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 10 10 8 96HIC-border culverts 385118 1 3 10 n/a 6 7 n/a 7 4 1 1 1 3 1 38HIC-Hwy 5 in CA 385116 38Badger-1mi in CA 385117 Category specific data not available at time of printing 54Badger-Kinsman 385112 77Gimby Creek 385114 46

Score <60% 61 -- 74% 75 -- 89% >90%Health Poor Fair Good Excellent

The remaining sites scored low for the above mentioned reasons coupled with a lack of canopy, fish and invertebrate habitat, and an infrequency of pools. The near complete absence of fish cover and vegetative canopy suggests that these two categories may not be applicable to many of the small, headwater sites that were assessed. Perhaps these small streams and coulee’s would not be expected to have woody debris, overhanging trees, and frequent backwater or pools. However, it should also be considered that in these highly managed waterways, what constitutes fish habitat and the canopy is removed during routine maintenance. Embeddedness is another category for which many sites received a low score. Embeddedness refers to degree to which larger channel materials are buried in silt. Larger channel materials, such as gravel and cobbles, were covered with silt at nearly every site. Only at high gradient sites and well-buffered headwater sites were the channel sediments less embedded. This may suggest that embeddedness is not a good measure of stream health in a watershed with many low gradient streams. In addition, the shale bedrock exposed by streams throughout the basin easily erodes to clay- and silt-size material. However, in the small coulees and headwater drainages where shale is not exposed and riparian vegetation is limited or absent, embeddedness is likely a good measure of impacts from agricultural practices. When the results of the two assessments are examined together, differences between management areas become apparent. Sites in the Snowflake/Mowbray Creeks and Badger Creek/Rock Lake Management Areas had the lowest scores. Even though Hidden Island Coulee west of Hansboro and Badger Creek at Kinsman Park scored high, the remaining sites assessed in that Management Area were significantly impaired from channel alteration, season-long over grazing, and riparian habitat removal. In the Snowflake/Mowbray Creeks Management Area, all

55

DRAFT

of the sites assessed were disturbed or altered, had little to no riparian zone, and fish and invertebrate habitat was absent. These sites were typically small channels that were frequently farmed through, maintained, or had been altered in the past. The Cypress Creek/ Swan Lake Management Area had the lowest score overall at the site near Calvin. This site was similar to Mowbray Creek sites that had been recently cleaned-out and was farmed to within feet of the channel. Closer to the Canadian border, Cypress Creek was in better condition, but had either been altered in the past or was being over-grazed by cattle. The sites with the healthiest riparian and channel conditions were located in the Lower Pembina Management Area just below the escarpment. These sites included the tributaries to the Tongue River and Little South Pembina. As discussed previously, sites located on or near the escarpment are generally high gradient, well forested, and protected from adjacent agricultural impacts. In addition, many of the sites selected for monitoring in the Tongue River Basin were downstream of retention structures and not located at road crossings. These locations, protected under easements, had wide riparian zones, good vegetative cover, and stable stream banks. Most, however, had been altered during dam construction, were highly embedded, and lacked good tree canopy, and fish habitat. Once the Tongue and Pembina Rivers reached the lake plain, assessment scores dropped. Most of the river channels traversing the lake plain have been altered and/or disturbed to accommodate the intense agricultural drainage. Riparian widths are narrow, root mass and woody debris are lacking, and stream banks are unstable. On both the Tongue and the Pembina Rivers, the channel is entrenched. On the Pembina, this is a natural phenomenon, but the Tongue has down-cut its channel and does not access the floodplain until discharges are well above bankfull levels. It also became difficult for field assessors to evaluate the channel characteristics of sites closer to the Red River. The Pembina near Neche and the City of Pembina, and the Tongue near Bathgate and it’s confluence with the Pembina are deep, wide, and muddy making them difficult, if not impossible to wade and evaluate the channel bottom.

Table 34. Summary of potential riparian impairments in Manitoba Tributary Miles Reviewed Miles Impaired PercentageBadger Creek 25.3 4.6 18.1 Cypress Creek 31.2 14.0 44.9 Crystal Creek 29.2 14.8 50.7 Pembina River (headwaters) 75.4 11.0 14.6 Snowflake Creek 14.2 1.3 8.9 Total 175.3 45.7 26.0

Aerial photo reconnaissance conducted on select rivers in Manitoba and North Dakota supports many of the results from the RHA and SVA evaluations (Table 34). The aerial reconnaissance can identify over a broader area the problems that are quantified through the RHA and SVA. Of the streams assessed, Cypress Creek and Crystal Creek had the highest percentage of potential impairments as described in the methods section. Snowflake Creek had the lowest percentage of observed impairments. Badger Creek and the Pembina headwaters had slightly more impairments at 18 and 15%, respectively. What this data suggests is that problems identified by

56

DRAFT

the RHA and SVA protocols in the Cypress Creek Management Area may be present throughout the subwatershed.

Table 35. Summary of potential riparian impairments in N.D.

Impairment Instances Agricultural 45 Bank Instability 63 Livestock operations 18 Feedlots 3 Miscellaneous 6 Total 135

Reconnaissance along the Tongue and Pembina Rivers in the Lower Pembina management area did not measure lengths or percentages of impairments, but simply counted observed instances of four types of potential issues. Table 35 supports problems identified by the SVA and RHA. Unstable banks, likely due to entrenched channels and narrow riparian areas, and encroachment of agriculture on the rivers are the two main issues for this management area. The digital images resulting from this reconnaissance work will be useful in both the US and Canadian portions of the basin to identify specific areas or reaches where best management practices need to be applied. A broad evaluation of land use and land cover types across the Pembina River Basin can provide some explanation for differences in stream habitat condition, water quality, and discharge patterns observed between the Management Areas. Table 36 is a summary of the five major land uses or types of cover identified in the Basin using satellite imagery. Cropped fields dominate the land use throughout the watershed and increase from nearly 50% in the Headwaters area to nearly 70% in the Lower Pembina. It would follow then that this increase in cropped acres would lead to a corresponding increase in practices that support this type of agriculture such as drainage and alteration to stream channels. This is somewhat supported by the decrease observed in surface water from the Headwaters to the Lower Pembina area. Topography and geologic history also play a significant role in surface water acreage when comparing the pot-holed glacial till plain with the flat expanse of the glacial Lake Agassiz lake bed. Pasture and Rangeland are more dominant in the upper management areas again because of the geology and soils. Impacts from grazing are also more prevalent in the Headwaters and Badger Creek Management Areas. Grassland, which represents CRP and fallow or resting acres, is highest in the central and lower portions of the watershed. For the most-part, grassland areas in the Headwaters area would be grazed and therefore considered Rangeland. In the central and lower parts of the watershed, these acres are likely enrolled in a US Fish and Wildlife or USDA CRP easement that limits land use to wildlife breeding and nest habitat or haying for forage. Many of these acres are native stands of grass that are protecting highly erodible or saline soils. Woodland or forested acres are most common in the steeply sloped gorge areas along the Pembina Escarpment, as groves in wet, dandy soils, or as riparian forests along the rivers. The highest coverage of wooded acres is in the Escarpment and riparian forests in the Lower Pembina Management Area and as large groves of aspen and poplar near the Turtle Mountains and Pelican Lake in the Headwaters.

57

DRAFT

Table 36. Land use/land cover data for the management areas in the PRB.

Management

Area Crop Grassland Other Pasture/Range Water Woods

Headwaters 47.4 5.3 0.2 37 5.2 4.9

Badger 52 11.8 0.3 28.5 4.3 3 Cypress 63.4 8 0.4 24.5 3.5 0.3

Snowflake 64.9 10.1 0.3 20.8 1.9 2.1 Lower

Pembina 69.7 11.9 0 11.6 1.5 5.3

Biological assessment can be a very effective tool for assessing the health of aquatic systems when the data is properly interpreted and the limitations are known and understood. Assessing the biological community, invertebrates in this case, can provide information on the cumulative effects of a variety of pollutants and stressors impacting the watershed. Invertebrate communities respond slowly to changes in water quality, but they can change over time in response to infrequent or low-levels of pollution. Many non-point source pollutants such as excess nutrients or sediment from runoff are variable in time, but can impact invertebrate communities that can be monitored. In addition, invertebrate populations are influenced by changes to the habitat even if the water quality is good. The land use and physical habitat in a watershed affects water quality and the hydrology and therefore has an influence on the biological communities in the rivers and streams. Biological monitoring does have limitations as to the information it can provide, especially in relation to the source and severity of the impact. Biological monitoring examines the cumulative effect of many stressors on the system, and therefore clouds the identity of individual pollutants. Biological community distribution is determined by habitat characteristics such that distributions of invertebrates can vary significantly even within a short reach of a river. It is many times difficult to determine the differences between natural population variability and those caused by pollution impacts. An extensive bio-assessment where regional methods, metrics, and references conditions are established and numerous sites are sampled is expensive and takes considerable effort. Despite these limitations, the reconnaissance level bio-assessment that was conducted in the Pembina River Basin provides some valuable baseline information on current condition in locations across the watershed. Table 37 displays the results of the macroinvertebrate assessment analyzed using several standard biological metrics. These metrics can be used for comparisons between sites, but should not be applied to whole tributaries or to compare subwatersheds.

58

DRAFT

Table 37. Results of macroinvertebrate assessment. Site Pembina at Red* Tong LS Pem Cyp Badg Long Pem-Wa Pem-WG Pem-LaR Up PemCalculated MetricsTotal Taxa 1831 337.0 230.0 76.0 3779.0 2705.0 146.0 162.0 412.0 377.0Taxa Richness 8 14.0 11.0 5.0 22.0 19.0 10.0 11.0 16.0 14.0EPT Index 1 8.0 6.0 1.0 10.0 9.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 7.0Percent Dominance 52.4 47.5 33.9 65.8 51.4 35.5 30.8 59.3 65.8 27.1Percent Diptera 21.6 19.0 28.3 67.1 5.3 11.9 16.4 4.9 2.9 29.2Percent EPT 24.6 59.1 68.3 15.8 63.1 37.5 32.2 29.0 21.8 38.2

*Artificial substrate

Key to site numbersB1 Pembina at Red Confluence B6 Pembina at LaRaviereB2 Tongue River near Cavalier B7 Cypress CreekB3 Pembina River at Walhalla B8 Badger Creek at Kinsman ParkB4 Little South Pembina River B9 Long RiverB5 Pembina River at Windy Gates B10 Pembina River Headwaters

Total taxa and taxa richness indicate the total number of individuals collected at a site and the number of varieties of individuals collected, respectively. Badger Creek at Kinsman Park had both a high total taxa and taxa richness. This suggests that the site is healthy enough to support large numbers of a diverse invertebrate population. The Long River site had similar results. The Pembina River near the headwaters and at La Rivere and the Tongue River sites all had similar numbers of total taxa and moderately high taxa richness, suggesting the sites are able to support a diverse assemblage of invertebrates. But the stream may not be large enough to support greater numbers of individuals. The Pembina River near the confluence with the Red River had the third highest number of individuals, but there were only eight different taxa types recorded. This suggests that the habitat is not diverse, but can support large invertebrate populations. The Cypress Creek site had the lowest total taxa and taxa richness suggesting the site does not support a large or diverse population and likely has limited habitat. This is bared out by the SVA and RHA completed on this site. Percent Dominance is based on the total taxa and taxa richness. It represents the overall diversity of the population of invertebrates. A high percent dominance indicates a less diverse population at that site. For example, Badger Creek at Kinsman Park had a high taxa richness and total number of taxa, but over half of the taxa were of the same species. Several of the sites were dominated by one species suggesting some imbalance in the population. The most diverse site was the Upper Pembina in the Headwaters Management Area where no one species comprised more than 27% of the population. The EPT index represents the number of ephemeroptera, plecoptera, and tricoptera found in the collection at each site. EPT invertebrates tend to be more sensitive to changes in environmental conditions and therefore considered good indicators of stream health. A higher EPT number, such as at the Badger Creek site is a good indicator of a healthy reach. The EPT index near the confluence with the Red River, at Walhalla, and at Cypress Creek suggest these reaches are not providing adequate habitat and/or water quality for these sensitive species. The Percent EPT provides similar information as the EPT index. Percent Diptera indicates the number of diptera as a percent of the total taxa collected at a site. As opposed to EPT, Diptera species are fairly tolerant of environmental stressors and can survive and even thrive in poor water quality conditions. As would be expected, sites with high taxa richness and a high percentage of EPT displayed a low percentage of Diptera. At unhealthier

59

DRAFT

sites, such as the Cypress Creek site, diptera species made up nearly 70% of the total collected sample. Other sites such as the Little South Pembina, the Upper Pembina and the Pembina at the Red had higher diptera numbers but an equal or greater number of EPT species. These sites are likely healthy, but are experiencing stresses or problems such as those identified in the SVA or RHA.

60

DRAFT

13.0 PROJECTS AND ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Each management area work group supported retention as a means of reducing localized flooding and accelerated soil erosion, mitigating the effect of drought, and creating wildlife habitat. By implementing best management practices (BMPs) such as conservation tillage, residue management, establishing buffers and improving soil health, water can be stored in the soil profile where it benefits agricultural productivity. Preserving and restoring wetlands contributes to temporary storage.

13.1 Land Management

Conservation of natural resources is a major consideration in North Dakota and Canada. Manitoba Conservation Districts (CDs) were established under the authority of The Conservation Districts Act. The CDs are divided into sub-districts along watershed boundaries. The Pembina River basin is managed under the Pembina Valley, Turtle Mountain, and Tiger Hills CDs. The state soil conservation committee, the state game and fish department, and the state water commission work with federal agencies to conserve the natural resources in North Dakota. Soil conservation districts are designated by areas and divided by county in North Dakota. The Pembina basin is regulated by Areas I & III.

Since the Dust Bowl, prevention of soil erosion has been of special concern in the region. Many programs in the US and Canada have been developed to assist farmers in soil conservation. For example, the Soil Conservation Council of Canada provides a public forum at the national level for soil conservation. The Manitoba - North Dakota Zero Tillage Farmers Association preserves agricultural soil resources for future generations by promoting a system of crop production to reduce soil erosion and generate organic matter. The US Conservation Reserve Program encourages farmers to idle highly erodible land (HEL) in exchange for a per-acre-payment. In addition, several US Acts require the planning and implementation of a conservation system on designated HEL cropland fields. Cropping is not the only land use that produces soil erosion; the uses of both vegetative and structural practices are necessary to control wind and water erosion (SWCS, 2004). Basic conservation principles of leaving vegetative cover on the land and decreasing slope lengths and field widths, as well as sufficient irrigation water management can be practiced to prevent soil erosion and improve water quality. Soil erosion from overland flooding, urban and industrial development, and streambank and roadside water erosion are also a significant source of sediment and nutrient loading in water resources.

13.2 Water Quality Strategies AFOs that meet the regulatory definition of a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in the US have the potential of being regulated under the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program (AFO, 2002). Manure from livestock is an increasing concern, especially in the Manitoba province due to the large increase in hog farming since the mid-1990s (MB, 2004). The following are suggested BMPs for the limitation of run-off from CAFOs facilities (TCPS, 1995):

61

DRAFT

• Maintain a buffer zone between irrigated crop land and sites where solids are disposed • Restrict land application of manure to areas at least 150 feet from waterways • Avoid application of manure on land subject to erosion • Recycle water used to flush manure from paved surfaces for irrigation • Construct ditches and waterways above and around open lots to divert runoff • Construct lined water-retention facilities to contain rainfall and runoff • Avoid the use of high slope areas, making runoff retention difficult • Apply solid manure at an optimal rate, using the nitrogen it contains for a given crop • Allow excess wastewater to evaporate by applying it evenly to land

Environment Canada’s National Water Research Institute (NWRI) are investigating the pathways agricultural chemicals take as they move through and over the soil, to help develop practices that reduce contaminant migration and minimize damage to water quality (NRWI, 2001). Research is also currently being conducted on irrigated land using inorganic fertilizer and pesticides. Preliminary findings suggested that groundwater contamination could be reduced by tillage; however, the soil erosion caused by excessive tillage must also be considered. The North Dakota State University currently offers BMPs related to soil and water conservation for the protection of groundwater from pesticides (Seelig, 1996):

• Utilize animal wastes, if available, as a source of organic matter and as a portion of nutrient inputs.

• Rotate low residue crops with green manure or with high residue crops that return larger portions of organic material to the soil.

• Use reduced tillage methods wherever possible. • Use tillage to disrupt macropores if preferential movement of pesticides is a source of

groundwater problems. • Use soil conservation practices that reduce the force of the wind. • Use soil conservation practices that reduce the force of runoff water.

Potential sources of pollutants other than agriculture are point sources, such as the discharge of municipal sewage, toxic substances, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs). Emergency response plans should be in place for these sources where they may exist in the event of an accident or spill.

13.3 Water Supply Issues Regardless of the uncertain current status of water supplies, demand in the region is growing. Therefore, conservation practices should be implemented. Approximately 59% of water use within the basin is consumed for municipal purposes. Manitoba Conservation specifically promotes the efficient use of municipal water. US national programs, such as EPA and NRCS, also support conservation practices. Recommended conservation techniques for indoor water use include replacing high water use toilets with Ultra Low Flow toilets, a water efficient showerhead, a low water-use dishwasher, front loading washing machines, alternatives to running tap water for preventing pipe freezing, and timely response and correction of leaks. Merely replacing showerheads and toilets with low-flow equivalents could reduce 20% of the municipal water demand or 10% of the entire demand for the basin. Fifty percent of municipal water consumed during the growing season is used to irrigate lawns and gardens (MC, 2004).

62

DRAFT

Conservation practices include reduction of turf area, watering deeply and infrequently, mulching to retain soil moisture, and keeping cut grass longer.

13.4 Flood Mitigation Measures The PRBAB/IRRB report mentioned in Section 6.0 also included additional suggestions to reduce flooding in the Pembina basin. These included modeling of the basin, set-back levees, coulee storage, and outlet options for boundary floodway, described in more detail below. Stated within the report is a note to keep in mind: “…as it concerns the Pembina River, the mitigative action must be directed at reducing the agricultural effects of relatively frequent Pembina River floods while taking into account the effects of mitigation measures in both countries” (Halliday, 2004). Modeling Existing Pembina River data includes Lidar coverage obtained along the Pembina River from Neche to the Red River and for a portion of the road-dike on the international boundary. Elevations using global positioning systems (GPS) were also collected on linear features included roads, culverts and dwellings in the flood plain. Several simulations were carried out in an IJC study by implementing a Mike-11 model (IJC, 2000). A few were performed to determine flow of flood waters with the removal of dikes and roads and to simulate “natural conditions”. Other simulations showed effects of various mitigation measures. It was found that the 1983 USACE proposed boundary floodway would have a minor impact in a major flood. A set-back dike system would reduce water levels west of Pembina by approximately one foot for a 10- or 25-year flood. Model simulation of the proposed Pembilier Dam showed no flooding up to about 10-year-flood flows. It is recommended that further modeling of the lower Pembina include a downstream boundary on the Red River, e.g., Emerson, MB. While two-dimensional models such as FLO-2D or TELEMAC-2D may be used in the same reach, work with one-dimensional models concerning the interaction of Red and Pembina waters should be completed before considering development of a two-dimensional model. The HEC-RAS model is more detailed than the Mike-11 model; however, both models should produce similar results if the same input data is used. There is a need to consider all the existing high resolution topographic information as well as other data and to prepare a seamless Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for the entire study area. Model runs can then be made to support various mitigation scenarios. Set-back Levees As the name implies, set-back levees are constructed a considerable distance from the river bank, allowing the river to occupy part of its natural floodplain. The proposed set-back levees along the Pembina River would therefore be farther from the river than the natural streamside levees. The exact design of the levees would depend on various factors including the flood protection level required and the ultimate use of the riparian land inside the levees. Depending on the height of the levees, they could also prevent breakout flows to the Tongue River and to the north during

63

DRAFT

summer storms. However, these proposed levees do not connect with high ground, and it is uncertain what will happen to the flows confined by the levees once they reach downstream ends. Coulee Storage Although development of major storage projects on the Pembina River appears not to meet benefit-cost tests and would require a long time frame for development, opportunities may exist to develop storage on coulees in the escarpment areas on both the Pembina and Tongue Rivers. There are currently ten dams constructed within the Tongue River watershed that have effectively reduced the peak flood flows from the watershed. Urban and Rural Flood-proofing The USACE is examining flood protection at Neche, which could lead to updated hydrology for the Pembina River and will allow verification of flood protection levels for communities and rural residences. The Pembina County Water Resources District could apply for cost sharing from the ND State Water Commission on the rural ring-dike program. When the new hydrology for the Pembina River is completed and effects of set-back levees determined, entities in ND may wish to promote the use of the program to affected landowners in the basin. Agricultural Damage Data A close examination of agricultural and infrastructure damage data may demonstrate the extent of summer flooding. Unfortunately, summer flood damages are not recorded very thoroughly unless there is a significant event. Such damages could relate to rural structures, crop losses, land erosion, or damage to roads and culverts. A review of existing data sources could lead to specific recommendations related to the type of damage data that should be routinely acquired when summer floods occur. Manitoba Channel Capacities If modeling indicates that natural flows crossing the international boundaries are greater than existing crossings allow, the capacity of these crossings should be increased. However, additional channelization in Manitoba downstream of the crossings may be required, otherwise Manitoba agricultural and infrastructure damages will likely increase.

13.5 Wetlands Programs Numerous programs are available to the basin for restoration or maintenance of wetlands. The Canadian Federal Government Policy on Wetland Conservation, the first federal wetland policy in the world, "promotes the conservation of Canada's wetlands to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions, now and in the future" (NRC, 2004). The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation (MHHC) coordinates the implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) in Manitoba. The NAWMP also involves the United States and Mexico. Agencies that partner with MHHC in NAWMP activities include Agriculture Canada

64

DRAFT

(Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration), Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service), Manitoba Agriculture, Manitoba Conservation and Wildlife Habitat Canada. US Federal Wetland Regulations consist of legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, and Rivers and Harbors Act, and regulatory programs, such as USACE, EPA, National Marine Fisheries Service, and NRCS. The Wetlands Reserve Program Incentive is a partnership program between USDA and ND G&F. The US Department of Interior Small Wetland Acquisition Program uses fee title and easement acquisition. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service manage the Federal Water Bank Program for landowners and farm operators for the protection of migratory waterfowl nesting and breeding areas. The Pembina River basin is also divided into wetland management districts: Towner, Cavalier and Pembina counties – Devils Lake Wetland Management District; and Rolette County – J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District. Conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited and local organizations have wetland preservation and economic incentive programs. The Partners Program in North Dakota restores and enhances prairie wetlands, technically and financially assisting farmers and ranchers (NDP, 2004). The program also promotes wildlife-enhancing agricultural practices such as rotational grazing systems, no-till cropping systems, and replacement of agricultural chemicals with biological and cultural practices. 14.0 GOALS AND DECISIONS

14.1 Common Basin Goals There are a number of goals, listed below, that are common to each of the management areas within the Pembina River Basin, and throughout the Red River Basin. Key themes that tie these goals together are sustainable use, awareness, collaboration and self-reliance.

• Enhance water quality throughout the Pembina River Basin • Ensure adequate supply of water to meet in-stream flow needs, domestic use, agricultural

use and development needs. • Promote the recognition that the issue of water management is essentially an issue of land

management. It is imperative to treat the cause, not the result of the symptoms, both in protecting existing function and to restore function where it has been lost or impaired.

• Maintain/enhance wildlife habitat and diversity throughout the watershed. • Develop a set of soil and water resource management measures aimed at preventing

economic losses to society as a whole that will improve and sustain agricultural and other productivity in the area.

• Collect necessary hydrologic data and monitor flows. • Promote education on watershed management. • Enhance recreational opportunities, especially eco-tourism and agro-tourism and promote

economic development of the area.

65

DRAFT

14.2 Specific Watershed Concerns and Goals Headwaters and Pelican Lake Work Group

• Ensuring an adequate supply of good quality water for domestic, agricultural and recreational use

• A goal of maintaining agricultural land in agricultural production was recommended • Further develop incentive programs to maintain wetlands and leave marginal lands in

native cover • Promoting education about watershed management through extension efforts, such as the

school system and a “Good Neighbor Policy” • Water management of water within the watershed and basin • Protection of wildlife and fisheries habitat and maintaining the biological diversity of

fauna and flora • Development of a wetland classification system • A need for an efficient and effective water management licensing system

Badger Creek and Rock Lake Work Group

• Controlled drainage, specifically for revisions to the process for drainage licensing in Manitoba, suggesting a credit system under which storage and drainage would be linked.

• A combination of riparian corridor restoration and relatively small temporary storage structures for improving water quality and reducing damage to road infrastructure

• Hidden Island Coulee, a tributary to Badger Creek, is a potential pilot project, combining structural and non-structural measures to retain water and reduce erosion

Cypress Creek and Swan Lake Work Group

• Retention and temporary storage are important and immediate needs • Established education program

Snowflake Creek, Mowbray Creek and Little South Pembina Work Group

• Promotes implementation of BMPs to protect and improve soil and water resources as the most important step toward watershed management

• Recommends utilization of GIS technology and digital soils survey data to target BMPs where most needed

• Mechanisms to share cost and decision making responsibility among all to whom benefits accrue

Tongue River and Lower Pembina River Work Group

• Proposes a setback levy system and ring dikes for farmsteads and communities along the lower reaches to protect property and limit flood damages

• Suggests further evaluation of the following alternatives to reduce flooding damages: o Controlled flow at natural breakout points

66

DRAFT

o Improved water storage throughout the basin and o A combination ring dike and setback levy system

• Concerned about accelerated soil erosion due to large floods • Emphasize the need for BMPs throughout the basin • Water quality assessment is a priority • Recommend zoning authority to ensure that development does not encroach upon the

river corridors and flood prone areas

14.3 Recommendations for Future Actions Further steps recommended for application of the goals presented include implementation of the WRAS, maintaining partnerships and education programs, and acquiring funding. WRAS Implementation The US Clean Water Action Plan provides incentives for watershed-scale planning and restoration activities under a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy program. The funding for this program is directed to states through a non-point source pollution program administered by the NDDH. The strategy is to identify source and beneficial use impairments in the watersheds of the Pembina River Basin and to work toward implementation of BMPs in the high priority watersheds. Implementation plans will be developed and submitted to the non-point source program for funding to cost share BMPs. Soil Conservation Districts in North Dakota will develop project implementation plans (PIPs) using EPA guidelines. Each PIP will detail the following: the restoration measures to be used, the schedule for the implementation of those measures, a monitoring plan to evaluate the success of restoration measures and a plan for securing necessary funding. An analogous process is needed in Manitoba. Education Program The work groups articulated the need for education programs to address both the general public and youth through the school systems. An effective education program engages all stakeholders and provides a factual base for improved understanding. It is important that all stakeholders, including the non-farm community, understand the dilemmas that water management poses and become engaged in finding solutions. Landowners and residents need to understand immediate and cumulative impacts of individual actions taken throughout the watershed. This could be given a positive spin by developing a recognition program for landowners or groups that do and/or who are exemplary stewards of land and water resources.

Schools can be a tremendous resource for watershed management efforts. The PRBAB should provide materials specific to the Pembina River Basin and generally support the importance of water education through Water Education for Teachers (WET) programs that exist in both North Dakota and Manitoba. The WET program was developed to emphasize the importance of water, its uses and the need to conserve and protect water resources. Junior High and High School students may also become involved in water quality monitoring programs that will be developed

67

DRAFT

in the next few years. Additional venues for water education include presentations to local landowners at meetings, publication and distribution of an educational pamphlet, and involvement of local landowners in monitoring programs. Partnerships The PRBAB was formed to build consensus at the watershed level and to speak with a unified voice for the Pembina River Basin. Local officials are interested in both retaining autonomy, and in seeking advocacy, technical and financial assistance from all levels. IJC Recommendations One of the recommendations put forth by the IJC Red River Task Force is to re-activate the International Technical Working Group that was formed in 1996. Working with the PRBAB and local interests, the work group should develop, implement and fund a solution that is sustainable in the long term. The PRBAB supports this recommendation and encourages state, provincial and federal agencies to make the necessary commitments. The IJC Red River Task Force is also developing a decision support system using the Pembina River as a pilot project. This effort, and the recognition that federal agencies in the US and Canada are partners in water management solutions, will help stakeholders evaluate and implement solutions. Adoption by Member Jurisdictions Members of the PRBAB retain their respective authorities to manage water in their own jurisdictions. Agreement on the plan of action and subsequent implementation will be accomplished by each of the members supporting the plan, both generally and specifically, and by working together. Funding Implementation will require funding from all levels of government. Local funding shows a commitment to get the job done and directly involves local decision-makers. State and provincial agencies have existing cost share programs, and may be able to target additional appropriations directly to specific initiatives. Federal agencies also can provide significant cost sharing as well as technical expertise, advice and information.

68

DRAFT

15.0 APPENDIX

15.1 Acronyms BMP – Best Management Practice DEM – Digital Elevation Model DU – Designated Use EPA – US Environmental Protection Agency FWS – US Fish and Wildlife Service GPS – Global Positioning System HEL – Highly Erodible Land IJC – International Joint Commission IRRB – International Red River Board MBCDC – Manitoba Conservation Data Centre MCWEP – Manitoba Conservation Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch MDNR – Manitoba Department of Natural Resources NDDH – North Dakota Department of Health ND G&F – North Dakota Game and Fish Department NRCS – US Natural Resources Conservation Service NWR – US National Wildlife Refuge NWRI – CAN National Water Research Institute PCB – Polychlorinated biphenyl PIP – Project implementation plan PRBAB – Pembina River Basin Advisory Board RRBB – Red River Basin Board TAG – Technical Advisory Group USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers USDA – US Department of Agriculture USGS – US Geological Survey WET – Water Education for Teachers WMA – Wildlife Management Area WRAS – Watershed Restoration Action Strategy

69

DRAFT

15.2 References

AAFC, 1995: “The Health of Our Soils: Toward sustainable agriculture in Canada”, D.F. Acton and L.J. Gregorich (editors), Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Publication 1906/E, 1995, http://res2.agr.gc.ca/publications/hs/index_e.htm, observed November 16, 2004

Acres, 2001: “Studies Review for Pembina river Sustainable Water Supply Development(s) and the Impacts of Such Development(s) on Flooding in the Red River”, Acres International Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba, P12967.00, June 2001

AFO, 2002: “Animal Feeding Operations”, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, US Environmental Protection Agency, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7, observed, November 21, 2002

Ashworth, Allen and John Bluemle, “The Pembina Escarpment”, www.state.nd.us/ndgs/pembina/Pembina.htm, observed November 30, 2004

Bluemle, 2004: Bluemle, John and Bob Biek, “No Ordinary Plain: North Dakota's Physiography and Landforms”, North Dakota Geological Survey, North Dakota Notes No. 1, www.state.nd.us/ndgs/NDNotes/ndn1.htm, observed September 20, 2004

Bourne, A., N. Armstrong, and G. Jones. 2002. A preliminary estimate of total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading to streams in Manitoba, Canada. Water Quality Management Section. Manitoba Conservation Report No. 2002 - 04. www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/nutrient_loading_report_2002-04_november_2002.pdf, observed October 19, 2004.

Carter, R. W. and J. Davidian. 1968. General procedure for gaging streams, USGS: TRWI Book 3, Chapter A6.

CWN, 2004: “North Dakota Waters”, Clean Water Network, www.cwn.org/docs/publications/factsheets/states/nd.pdf, November 23, 2004

DeKrey, 1998: DeKrey, David C., “A Comparison of Fish Community Structure in Relation to Habitat Variation in Three North Dakota Streams”, thesis, University of North Dakota, July 1998

DUC, 2004: “Wetland and Wildlife Conservation in Manitoba”, Ducks Unlimited Canada, www.ducks.ca/province/mb/, November 23, 2004

Edwards, T.K. and G.D. Glysson. 1999. Field methods for the measurement of fluvial sediment. USGS: TWRI Book 3, Chapter C2

70

DRAFT

Ericksmoen, 1989: Eriksmoen, Curt, and Larry Remele, “North Dakota Chronology”, compiled for the 1989 North Dakota Blue Book, Chronology of North Dakota History, State Historical Society of North Dakota, www.state.nd.us/hist/chrono.htm, observed September 20, 2004

Faanes, 2004: Faanes, Craig A. and Jonathan M. Andrew, “Avian Use of Forest Habitats in the Pembina Hills of Northeastern North Dakota”, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, USGS, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/pemhill/pemhill.htm, observed September 20, 2004

Fitch, L., B.W. Adams, and G. Hale. 2001. Riparian Health Assessment for Stream and Small Rivers - Field Workbook. Kethbridge, Alberta: Cows and Fish Program.

Fromhold, 1994: Fromhold, J., “Some Early History of Western Canada: This Year in History”, Northwest Plains History, Heritage Consulting, 1994, http://users.rttinc.com/~asiniwachi/whnwp.html, observed September 20, 2004

GC, 2004: “Sensitivities to Climate Change in Canada: Wind erosion”, Government of Canada, http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/home2_e.asp?CaID=17&PgID=69, observed November 30, 2004

Gomes, 1998: Gomes, Scott, “A closer look: Wetlands.” North Dakota Outdoors 60(10):12-13. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 1998. www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/closlook/wetlands.htm (Version 01SEPT98), observed October 20, 2004

Halliday, R., R. Bowering, and R. Gjestvang. 2004. Lower Pembina River Flooding: A Report to the International Red River Board.

IJC, 2000: “Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Lower Pembina River”, prepared by Water Management Consultants for International Joint Commission, Report 7012/R3, March 2000

Jones, 2001: Jones, Geoff and Nicole Armstrong, “Long-term Trends in Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Manitoba Streams”, Manitoba Conservation Report No. 2001-07, December 2001, http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/trend_report.pdf, observed October 19, 2004

Kantrud, 1983: Kantrud, Harold A., “An Environmental Overview of North Dakota: Past and Present”, Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online, 1983, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/envovrvw/envovrvw.htm (Version 16JUL97), observed November 16, 2004

Leier, 2004: Leier, Doug, “The Valley Outdoors: The Value of Temporary Wetlands”, NoDak Outdoors, www.nodakoutdoors.com/valleyoutdoors27.php, November 23, 2004

Macek, 2002: Macek-Rowland, Kathleen M. and Valerie M. Dressler, “Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data for Selected Streamflow-Gaging Stations in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota”, Open-File Report 02-390, US Department

71

DRAFT

of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Bismarck, North Dakota, 2002, http://nd.water.usgs.gov/pubs/ofr/ofr02390/pdf/ofr02390.pdf, observed October 18, 2004

MC, 2004: “Manitoba Conservation: Water Efficiency Program”, Province of Manitoba, Manitoba Conservation, Programs Division Pollution Prevention Branch, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pollutionprevention/wateruse, observed October 5, 2004.

McCarthy, 2001: McCarthy, Barbara, “An Overview of Air, Water, and Soil in Agriculture”, Department of Environmental Health, Colorado State University, ASH-NET 2001, www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001701-d001800/d001761/d001761.html, observed November 16, 2004

McCollor, 2004: McCollor, Don, “Lake Agassiz: Child of Ice”, Earthscapes: The Red River Valley, www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/eng/fkarner/pages/agassiz.htm, observed September 20, 2004

MCFB, 2004: Manitoba Conservation Forestry Branch, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/forest-education/general.html, observed September 20, 2004

MWS, 2004: “Southern Manitoba Lakes”, Lake Conditions Report, Water Branch, Manitoba Water Stewardship, September 30, 2004, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/images/southern_lakes_sept_30_2004.pdf, observed October 28, 2004

National Weather and Climate Center. 1998. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol. Natural Resources Conservation Service - NWCC Technical Note 99-1.

North Dakota Department of Health. 2001. Standard Operating Procedures For Field Samplers. Bismarck, ND.

NDDH, 2003: “A Guide to Safe Eating of Fish Caught in North Dakota”, Division of Water Quality, North Dakota Department of Health, July 2003, www.health.state.nd.us/wq/sw/Z7_Publications/B_2003FishAdvisory.pdf, observed October 18, 2004

NDP, 2004: “Conservation Strategies”, North Dakota Partners, US Fish & Wildlife Service, http://northdakotapartners.fws.gov/nd23.htm, observed November 23, 2004

NRC, 2004: “Wetlands”, The Atlas of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/theme_modules/wetlands/index.html, observed November 23, 2004

PSU, 2004: “Estimating Water Use for the Farm and Home”, Cooperative Extension, College of agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University,

72

DRAFT

www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/act220/Docs/water_use_PSU.pdf, observed October 20, 2004

PVCD, 1997: “Fisheries Enhancement Evaluation for the Pembina River”, prepared for the Pembina Valley Conservation District, MES Environmental, March 31, 1997

PVPP, 2004: “Pembina Valley Provincial Park”, Popular Parks, Manitoba Conservation, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/parks/popular_parks/pembina/index.html, observed October 11, 2004

Reynolds, 1997: Reynolds, Ronald E., D. R. Cohan, and C. R. Loesch, “Wetlands of North and South Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Jamestown, ND, 1997, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/wetstats/wetstats.htm (Version 01OCT97), observed November 23, 2004

S&E, 2001: “Reducing Risks to Water Quality”, Science and Environment Bulletin, Environment Canada, May/June 2001, www2.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay01/article3_e.html, observed October 18, 2004

Seelig, 1996: Seelig, Bruce, “Soil and Water Conservation BMPs for Groundwater Protection from Pesticide”, AE-1115, July 1996, NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University, http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/h2oqual/watgrnd/ae1115w.htm, observed November 18, 2004 Seelig, 2000: Seelig, B. D., “Salinity and Sodicity in North Dakota Soils”, EB 57, May 2000, www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/soilfert/eb57-2.htm, observed November 16, 2004

SW, 2004: “Manitoba Water Guide”, Manitoba Water Stewardship, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/water_guide/surfwat.html, observed November 23, 2004

SWCS, 2004: “Position Statements”, North Dakota Soil and Water Conservation Society, http://ndswcs.org/Position.htm, observed November 23, 2004

TCPS, 1995: “The Texas Environmental Almanac”, Texas Center for Policy Studies, Texas Environment Center, 1995, www.texascenter.org/almanac/QUALITYCH2P5.HTML, observed November 21, 2002

TMC, 2004: “A brief history of the development of Manitoba”, Manitoba History, Travel Manitoba Canada, www.travelmanitoba.com/quickfacts/mb_history.html, observed September 20, 2004

TMDL, 2004: “Total Maximum Daily Loads”, US Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/, observed October 18, 2004

Upham, Warren. 1895. The Glacial Lake Agassiz, Department of the Interior, Monographs of the USGS, Volume 25, Washington Government Printing Office 1895, Scanned and formatted by

73

DRAFT

Kathryn Thomas, North Dakota State University Libraries, April 30, 2002, www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/text/lakeagassiz/index.html, observed September 20, 2004

Young, 1992: Young, Steve, “South Dakota Prairie Wetlands”, May 1992, www.northern.edu/natsource/HABITATS/Sdprai2.htm, observed November 23, 2004.

EPA, 2004: “North Dakota Waterbody and Designated Use Data”, Water Quality Standards Database, US Environmental Protection Agency, http://oaspub.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/wqsi_wb_du.rep_parameter?p_state=ND, observed October 18, 2004

WB, 2004: “Spring Flood and Water Supply Outlook for Manitoba”, Water Branch, Manitoba Water Stewardship, February 23, 2004, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/fld_forecast_040223.html, observed October 28, 2004

WEP, 2004: “Managing Animals, Plant, & Habitats: Species at Risk”, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch, Manitoba Conservation, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/managing/species_at_risk.html, observed November 18, 2004

Wilde, F.D., D.B. Radtke, J. Gibs, and R.T. Iwatsubo; editors. 1999. Collection of water samples. USGS: TWRI Book 9, Chapter A4.

William, 2004: “William Lake Provincial Park”, Popular Parks, Manitoba Conservation, www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/parks/popular_parks/william_lake/index.html, observed October 11, 2004

Williams, 2000: Williams-Sether, Tara, “High-Streamflow Statistics of Selected Streams in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Manitoba”, Water Resources of North Dakota, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-344, Bismarck, North Dakota, 2000, http://nd.water.usgs.gov/pubs/ofr/ofr00344/index.html, observed October 28, 2004

Winistorfer, 2001: Winistorfer, Jo Ann, “Alexander Henry's Legacy: Journal Paints Picture of Fur Trade History”, North Dakota Magazine, February 2001, Red River History, RiverWatch, www.riverwatchonline.com/history/rec/index.html, observed September 20, 2004

WRND, 2004: “USGS Pembina River of North Dakota”, Water Resources of North Dakota, USGS, http://nd.water.usgs.gov/index/pembinapage.html, observed September 20, 2004

74