St. Paul District

FINAL 

DEVILS LAKE, 

NORTH DAKOTA 

INTEGRATED PLANNING REPORT 

AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

VOLUME 1 

(Main Report and Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) 

April 2003 
FINAL INTEGRATED PLANNING REPORT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR 

DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA 

The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the Engineer 

District, St. Paul, having the lead in preparation of the Integrated Planning Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Cooperating Agencies include: North Dakota State Water Commission, Bismarck, North 

Dakota; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado; and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

ABSTRACT 

In 1997, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to undertake 

preconstruction engineering and design, and to prepare an associated Environmental 

Impact Statement for an emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the 

Sheyenne River for the purposes of reducing flooding problems caused by the rising water 

levels. In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003, Division D of 

Public Law 108-7, the Congress directed the Corps to construct an emergency outlet from

Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River, subject to several conditions, including the Secretary 

of State providing assurances that the project will not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty 

of 1909. The Corps has identified for construction a 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) outlet 

at Pelican Lake as the preferred alternative to alleviate flood damages at Devils Lake if the 

lake continues to rise. Following public review of the Integrated Planning Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement, the Corps will recommend a final course of action. If 

the Pelican Lake outlet plan is selected, other Federal and State agencies would have to 

take additional actions before the outlet could be constructed and operated. 

The Devils Lake study area encompasses the approximately 3,800 square mile Devils 

Lake drainage basin and almost 900 miles of the Sheyenne River and the Red River of 

the North, extending into Canada. The Corps has determined that, if the wet weather 

continues, another 163,000 acres could be flooded and additional damages in excess of 

$900 million could occur. Under such conditions, the lake would eventually overflow 

into the Stump Lakes and then the Sheyenne River. Then, besides elevated salinity levels 

in the river, this would cause the river to flood, the groundwater to rise, and erosion to 

increase as well as resulting in the loss of aquatic and riparian habitat. The Corps 

evaluated structural and nonstructural alternatives to reduce urban, infrastructure, and 

agricultural flood damage, including upper basin storage/watershed management and 

various infrastructure protection measures. The Corps also considered several structural 

alternatives involving the construction of a pumping station or emergency outlet to lower 

lake levels. 
The Corps has identified the Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet plan as the preferred alternative. 

This plan consists of pumping facilities, an open channel, a buried pipeline, and mitigation 

features. The estimated cost of the plan is $186.5 million. The outlet would be operated 

annually for 7 months from May through November. Operation would be constrained by 

channel capacity and 300 milligrams per liter (mg/l) sulfate at the point of discharge on the 

Sheyenne River. Where possible, measures are included to avoid/minimize impacts 

through project design. Where unavoidable impacts occur, mitigation is included to 

facilitate the recovery of the system after the project ceases operation. 

Mitigation features include design features to avoid or minimize adverse effects, the 

acquisition and management of approximately 6,000 acres of riparian habitat, erosion 

protection to minimize the effects of turbidity and sedimentation, high flow bypass 

channels to maintain critical aquatic habitat, and a sand filter to minimize the risk of biota 

transfer. The mitigation proposal adopts an adaptive management approach by including 

extensive monitoring to: (1) establish baseline conditions on the Sheyenne River prior to 

outlet operation, (2) document expected level of effects associated with outlet operation, 

and (3) ensure that mitigation features are sufficient to allow recovery of resources along 

the Sheyenne River once operation of the outlet has ceased. Monitoring activities to 

establish baseline conditions and monitoring costs for the first 10 years of operation are 

proposed as first costs. 

The Corps of Engineers traditionally recommends plans that show the greatest expected 

net benefits, where benefits exceed costs based on the probability of flood events 

(stochastic approach). As a standard process under the Principles and Guidelines, this is 

referred to as the National Economic Development, or NED, plan. None of the outlet 

plans meets that economic criterion using a stochastic approach. The benefit-cost ratio of 

the Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet plan incorporating probabilities of occurrence is 0.19. 

However, in Public Law 108-7, the Congress removed the traditional requirements 

regarding economic justification and provided instead that the justification for the 

emergency outlet shall be fully described, including the analysis of the benefits and costs. 

Further coordination is needed with respect to compliance with the Boundary Waters 

Treaty of 1909 and the Clean Water Act. Additional data acquisition and monitoring will 

be required to further define and evaluate the operational impacts of an outlet. Based on 

the results of these evaluations, supplemental National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documentation will be prepared as required. 

For further information concerning this Integrated Planning Report and Environmental 

Impact Statement, please contact the following individuals at the address shown below. 

Mr. David Loss (Integrated Planning Report) 

Mr. Robert Anfang (Environmental Impact Statement) 

St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers 

190 Fifth Street East 

 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638 

 
DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA 

FINAL INTEGRATED PLANNING REPORT 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

VOLUME 1 

Table of Contents 

 Page 

*COVER SHEET/ABSTRACT 

*TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. i 

List of Tables .................................................................... xi 

List of Figures .................................................................... xiii

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ....................................................... xv 

*SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ S-1 

Major Conclusions and Findings............................................................... S-1 

Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues............................................ S-11 

Relationship to Environmental Protection Statutes and Other 

Environmental Requirements................................................................ S-18 

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ I-1 

1 AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. 1-1 

Preconstruction Engineering and Design and Environmental Impact 

Statement Preparation ........................................................................... 1-1 

Construction Funding – Emergency Outlet ............................................... 1-1 

2 *PURPOSE AND SCOPE.............................................................................. 2-1 

3 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING WATER PROJECTS . 3-1 

Prior Reports and Studies Prepared by the Corps of Engineers................. 3-1 

Recent Reports by Other Agencies............................................................ 3-3 

Recent Studies Associated with This Report............................................. 3-4 

Existing Water Projects.............................................................................. 3-8 

City of Devils Lake Levee System ................................................ 3-8 

 Transportation Facilities ................................................................ 3-9 

Other Communities, Rural Areas, and Infrastructure .................... 3-11 

 Channel A ...................................................................................... 3-13 

 Baldhill Dam/Sheyenne River ....................................................... 3-13 

 Valley City..................................................................................... 3-14 

i
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

4 *DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ........................................................... 4-1 

General Description of Study Area............................................................ 4-1 

 Devils Lake Basin.......................................................................... 4-1 

Area Downstream in the Red River of the North Basin ................ 4-7 

5 PLAN FORMULATION................................................................................ 5-1 

Problems and Opportunities....................................................................... 5-1 

 Flood Damages .............................................................................. 5-1 

Significant Resources..................................................................... 5-4 

 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment............................................... 5-7 

 Devils Lake Basin.......................................................................... 5-7 

 Natural Resources.............................................................. 5-7 

 Social Resources................................................................ 5-8 

 Cultural Resources............................................................. 5-9 

Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ..................... 5-10 

 Sheyenne River.............................................................................. 5-10 

 Natural Resources.............................................................. 5-10 

Water Use from the Sheyenne River ................................ 5-12 

 Social Resources................................................................ 5-12 

 Cultural Resources............................................................. 5-13 

Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ..................... 5-13 

Red River of the North................................................................... 5-13 

 Natural Resources.............................................................. 5-13 

Water Use from the Red River of the North ..................... 5-14 

 Social Resources................................................................ 5-17 

 Cultural Resources............................................................. 5-17 

Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ..................... 5-17 

 Future Without-Project Conditions................................................ 5-18 

 Planning Objectives....................................................................... 5-18 

 Planning Constraints...................................................................... 5-20 

 Cost-effectiveness.............................................................. 5-20 

Water Quality Standards.................................................... 5-21 

Downstream Channel Capacity.......................................... 5-21 

 Alternative Plans........................................................................................ 5-22 

Initial Screening of Alternatives.................................................... 5-22 

 No Action........................................................................... 5-22 

Most Likely Future Without Project.................................. 5-23 

 Water Treatment ................................................................ 5-23 

 Relocation .......................................................................... 5-24 

 Outlet Plans........................................................................ 5-24 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ................................... 5-26 

Upper Basin Storage .......................................................... 5-27 

 

ii
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

Intermediate Array of Alternatives.................................................. 5-29 

 No Action........................................................................... 5-29 

Most Likely Future Without Project.................................. 5-29 

West Bay Outlet (Peterson Coulee)................................... 5-36 

 Pelican Lake Outlet............................................................ 5-41 

 East Devils Lake Outlet ..................................................... 5-45 

 Raise Natural Outlet........................................................... 5-47 

 Upper Basin Storage .......................................................... 5-48 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ................................... 5-49 

 Combinations..................................................................... 5-50 

 Cost Estimates.................................................................... 5-51 

Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................................................... 5-52 

 General (Effectiveness, Efficiency, Acceptability) ....................... 5-52 

Basis for a Scenario-Based Analysis in Addition to the 

 Stochastic Analysis................................................................... 5-53 

 Lake Level Forecasting for Stochastic and Scenario-Based 

Approaches................................................................................ 5-54 

 Stochastic Analysis............................................................ 5-55 

Wet Future Scenario Analysis ........................................... 5-55 

 Sensitivity Analyses....................................................................... 5-56 

No-Action Protection Strategy........................................... 5-56 

Moderate Future Scenarios................................................ 5-57 

Erosion of Natural Outlet................................................... 5-57 

Proposed Temporary Outlet as Part of Future Conditions. 5-57 

Sulfate Constraints and Operational Plan .......................... 5-58 

Dry Lake Diversion Incremental Justification................... 5-58 

 Stochastic Evaluation ................................................................................ 5-59 

 Cost-effectiveness.......................................................................... 5-59 

Sensitivity of No-Action Base Condition ...................................... 5-60 

 Hydrologic Effectiveness............................................................... 5-60 

 Water Quality Considerations........................................................ 5-60 

 Other Environmental Effects ......................................................... 5-61 

 Social Effects................................................................................. 5-62 

Upper Basin Storage .......................................................... 5-62 

 300-cfs Outlets................................................................... 5-66 

 480-cfs Outlets................................................................... 5-67 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ................................... 5-68 

Raise Natural Outlet........................................................... 5-68 

 Cultural Effects.............................................................................. 5-69 

Scenario-Based Analysis – Wet Future ..................................................... 5-69 

 Cost-effectiveness.......................................................................... 5-69 

Sensitivity of No-Action Base Condition ...................................... 5-71 

 Hydrologic Considerations ............................................................ 5-71 

iii
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

 Water Quality Considerations........................................................ 5-72 

In-Lake Water Quality Effects....................................................... 5-74 

 Downstream Water Quality Impacts.............................................. 5-75 

Summary of Water Quality Effects................................................ 5-77 

 Nutrient Loading Effects................................................................ 5-81 

 Hardness Effects ............................................................................ 5-86 

 Sodium Effects............................................................................... 5-86 

 Chloride Effects............................................................................. 5-89 

 Mercury Effects ............................................................................. 5-89 

 Other Downstream Water Quality Effects..................................... 5-94 

Effect of Sand Filter on Downstream Water Quality..................... 5-94 

 Effects of Uncontrolled Overflow from Stump Lake .................... 5-94 

 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................... 5-97 

 Moderate Future Scenarios............................................................ 5-97 

1455 Peak Lake Level........................................................ 5-97 

1450 Peak Lake Level ....................................................... 5-98 

Erosion of the Natural Outlet ........................................................ 5-100 

Proposed Temporary Outlet as Part of Future Conditions............. 5-104 

Sulfate Constraints and Operational Plan ...................................... 5-105 

 General............................................................................... 5-105 

Outlet Effectiveness Sensitivity to Pumping Constraints.. 5-106 

Water Quality Sensitivity to Sulfate Constraints............... 5-106 

 Consideration of Systemic Operating Strategies to 

 Reduce Water Quality Effects ........................................... 5-110 

Dry Lake Diversion Incremental Justification .............................. 5-113 

Assessment of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives............................ 5-115 

 Intangible Considerations ............................................................. 5-115 

 General Conclusions ..................................................................... 5-115 

Summary of Alternatives Selected for More Detailed Analysis.... 5-117 

Most Likely Future Without Project.................................. 5-117 

 Outlets................................................................................ 5-117 

 Raise Natural Outlet........................................................... 5-118 

 Upper Basin Storage .......................................................... 5-118 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ................................... 5-118 

Description of Alternatives to be Evaluated in Detail ............................... 5-118 

Most Likely Future Without Project ............................................. 5-118 

 Introduction........................................................................ 5-118 

 Devils Lake Features Analyzed ......................................... 5-119 

 Scope of the Additional Analysis ...................................... 5-120 

 Extent of Detailed Analysis............................................... 5-121 

Lake Levels and Flood Protection Decisions..................... 5-122 

 Flood Protection Actions for Individual Features.............. 5-125 

iv
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

 Summary of More Detailed Analysis at First Action 

 Level .............................................................................. 5-129 

Summary of Analysis for All Features and All Action 

Levels............................................................................ 5-133 

Outlet Plan – Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet..................................... 5-133 

 Components ....................................................................... 5-134 

 Operation Plan ................................................................... 5-143 

 Cost Estimate ..................................................................... 5-147 

 Economics Analysis Summary .......................................... 5-150 

 Upper Basin Storage ...................................................................... 5-150 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ............................................... 5-151 

 General Information........................................................... 5-152 

Protection Strategy by Lake Level..................................... 5-154 

 Protection Strategy Description ......................................... 5-154 

 Environmental/Cultural Issues........................................... 5-156 

 Economics of Flood Protection.......................................... 5-157 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................... 6-1 

Introduction – Future Without-Project Conditions (Stochastic Future and 

Scenario Future).................................................................................... 6-1 

 Stochastic Future........................................................................................ 6-1 

 Future Without-Project Conditions ............................................... 6-2 

 Social Resources................................................................ 6-5 

 Social Effects..................................................................... 6-6 

Local Economic Implications of Physical Effects............. 6-19 

 Downstream Water Users.................................................. 6-29 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-30 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-33 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-33 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-34 

Upper Basin Storage .................................................................................. 6-34 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-34 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-37 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-39 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-39 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-39 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ........................................................... 6-40 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-40 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-44 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-44 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-44 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-45 

v
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

 Outlet Plan ................................................................................................. 6-45 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-45 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-53 

 Devils Lake Effects............................................................ 6-54 

 Upper Basin Effects........................................................... 6-55 

 Sheyenne River Effects...................................................... 6-56 

 Red River Effects............................................................... 6-66 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-72 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-73 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-75 

 Scenario Future .......................................................................................... 6-86 

 Future Without Project................................................................... 6-86 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-86 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-94 

 Devils Lake ........................................................................ 6-94 

 Downstream Areas............................................................. 6-95 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-98 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-99 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-99 

Upper Basin Storage .................................................................................. 6-99 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-99 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-99 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-100 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-100 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-100 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection ........................................................... 6-100 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-100 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-100 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-100 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-100 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-101 

 Outlet Plan ................................................................................................. 6-101 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-101 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-101 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-102 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-102 

 Mitigation....................................................................................... 6-102 

Risk and Uncertainty.................................................................................. 6-102 

 Sensitivity .................................................................................................. 6-108 

 Social Resources............................................................................ 6-109 

 Natural Resources.......................................................................... 6-109 

 Erosion of Natural Outlet................................................... 6-109 

vi
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

Moderate Lake Levels of 1450 or 1455............................. 6-109 

 No Action........................................................................... 6-110 

 State Outlet Alternative and 300-mg/l Sulfate Constraint 

Feature........................................................................... 6-110 

 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 6-110 

 Other States, Nations, and Tribal Resources ................................. 6-111 

 Cumulative Effects..................................................................................... 6-111 

7 REAL ESTATE PLAN................................................................................... 7-1 

 Introduction................................................................................................ 7-1 

Pelican Lake Outlet.................................................................................... 7-1 

 General Description ....................................................................... 7-1 

 Project Authorization..................................................................... 7-2 

 Project Description......................................................................... 7-2 

Sponsor-Owned Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way...................... 7-4 

 Estates ............................................................................................ 7-4 

Existing Federal Project and Federally Owned Lands................... 7-6 

 Navigational Servitude................................................................... 7-8 

 Map ................................................................................................ 7-10 

 Induced Flooding ........................................................................... 7-10 

 Baseline Cost Estimate .................................................................. 7-11 

Public Law 91-646 Residence/Business Relocations.................... 7-11 

 Mineral Activity............................................................................. 7-12 

 Sponsor Assessment....................................................................... 7-12 

 Zoning............................................................................................ 7-12 

 Acquisition Schedule ..................................................................... 7-13 

 Facility/Utility Relocations............................................................ 7-13 

 Environmental Clearance............................................................... 7-13 

 Landowners.................................................................................... 7-13 

 Miscellaneous ................................................................................ 7-13 

Likely Future Without Project ................................................................... 7-19 

Feature 1: Churchs Ferry .............................................................. 7-21 

Feature 2: City of Devils Lake...................................................... 7-22 

 General Description ........................................................... 7-22 

 Project Authorization......................................................... 7-22 

 Project Description............................................................. 7-22 

 Sponsor-Owned LER......................................................... 7-23 

 Estates................................................................................ 7-23 

 Existing Federal Project..................................................... 7-23 

 Federally Owned Lands..................................................... 7-23 

 Navigational Servitude....................................................... 7-23 

 Map .................................................................................... 7-24 

vii
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

 Induced Flooding ............................................................... 7-24 

 Baseline Cost Estimate ...................................................... 7-24 

 Public Law 91-646 Residence/Business Relocations........ 7-24 

 Mineral Activity................................................................. 7-24 

 Sponsor Assessment........................................................... 7-24 

 Zoning................................................................................ 7-27 

 Acquisition Schedule ......................................................... 7-27 

 Facility/Utility Relocations................................................ 7-27 

 Environmental Clearance................................................... 7-27 

 Landowners........................................................................ 7-27 

Feature 3: Fort Totten ................................................................... 7-27 

Feature 4: City of Minnewaukan .................................................. 7-28 

 General Description ........................................................... 7-28 

 Project Authorization......................................................... 7-28 

 Project Description............................................................. 7-28 

 Sponsor-Owned LER......................................................... 7-28 

 Estates................................................................................ 7-29 

 Existing Federal Project..................................................... 7-29 

 Federally Owned Lands..................................................... 7-29 

 Navigational Servitude....................................................... 7-29 

 Map .................................................................................... 7-29 

 Induced Flooding ............................................................... 7-29 

 Baseline Cost Estimate ...................................................... 7-30 

 Public Law 91-646 Residence/Business Relocations........ 7-30 

 Mineral Activity................................................................. 7-30 

 Sponsor Assessment........................................................... 7-30 

 Zoning................................................................................ 7-30 

 Acquisition Schedule ......................................................... 7-32 

 Facility/Utility Relocations................................................ 7-32 

 Environmental Clearance................................................... 7-32 

 Landowners........................................................................ 7-32 

Feature 5: St. Michael................................................................... 7-32 

Feature 6: Gilbert C. Grafton Military Reserve ............................ 7-33 

Feature 7: Grahams Island State Park........................................... 7-34 

Feature 8: Rural Features.............................................................. 7-34 

 Feature 10: Canadian Pacific Railroad ......................................... 7-35 

 Feature 11: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad..................... 7-36 

Feature 16: U.S. Highway 281 (South of U.S. Highway 2).......... 7-36 

Feature 17: U.S. Highway 281 (North of U.S. Highway 2).......... 7-37 

Feature 19: ND Highway 1........................................................... 7-38 

Feature 22: ND Highway 20......................................................... 7-39 

viii
Table of Contents (cont) 

 Page 

Feature 23: BIA Highway 1.......................................................... 7-40 

Feature 24: BIA Highway 26........................................................ 7-40 

 Expanded Infrastructure Protection .......................................................... 7-41 

 General Description ....................................................................... 7-41 

 Project Authorization..................................................................... 7-41 

 Project Description......................................................................... 7-41 

 Mission Township Area..................................................... 7-42 

 Acorn Ridge Area .............................................................. 7-42 

Sponsor-Owned Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way...................... 7-42 

 Estates ............................................................................................ 7-43 

 Existing Federal Project................................................................. 7-43 

 Federally Owned Lands................................................................. 7-43 

 Navigational Servitude................................................................... 7-44 

 Map ................................................................................................ 7-45 

 Induced Flooding ........................................................................... 7-45 

 Baseline Cost Estimate .................................................................. 7-45 

Public Law 91-646 Residence/Business Relocations.................... 7-45 

 Mineral Activity............................................................................. 7-45 

 Sponsor Assessment....................................................................... 7-46 

 Zoning............................................................................................ 7-46 

 Acquisition Schedule ..................................................................... 7-46 

 Facility/Utility Relocations............................................................ 7-46 

 Environmental Clearance............................................................... 7-46 

 Landowners.................................................................................... 7-46 

8 *PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, REVIEW, CONSULTATION..................... 8-1 

Scoping ...................................................................................................... 8-2 

Distribution of the Draft Integrated Planning Report/EIS......................... 8-4 

Recommendations from Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report ....... 8-4 

 

9 VIEWS OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR .................................................... 9-1 

10 LOCAL COOPERATION REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 10-1 

11 COST SHARING.......................................................................................... 11-1 

12 *CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 12-1 

13 RECOMMENDATION................................................................................ 13-1 

14 *LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................. 14-1

ix
“*” Indicates information required for NEPA compliance (see 40 CFR 1502.10). 

APPENDIXES

VOLUME 1 

APPENDIX 1 – 404(b)(1) Evaluation 

APPENDIX 2 – Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 

APPENDIX 3 – Mailing List 

APPENDIX 4 – Letters of Comment on the Draft Integrated Planning 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

APPENDIX 5 – Summary of Comments and Corps Responses 

APPENDIX 6 – Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement 

VOLUME 2

APPENDIX A – Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Water Quality Modeling 

APPENDIX B – Economic Evaluations 

APPENDIX C – Environmental Resources 

APPENDIX D – Plan Formulation 

APPENDIX E – Infrastructure Protection Plan 

APPENDIX F – Cost Estimate for Outlet Plan 

x
Table of Contents (cont) 

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Page

S-1 Comparison of Lake Level Probability Estimates made in 

 1994, 1995, 1998 and 1999 with the Actual Peak Lake 

 Levels reached from 1994 through 1999 .................................... S-3 

S-2 Comparison of Selected Outlet Plan and No Outlet ........................ S-4 

S-3 Relative Risk of Building or Not Building an Outlet ...................... S-7 

5-1 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................... 5-15 

5-2 Infrastructure Strategies................................................................... 5-37 

5-3 Alternative Costs.............................................................................. 5-40 

5-4 Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost Effectiveness 

 and Lake Stage Effectiveness – Stochastic Analysis.................... 5-59 

5-5 Impact Matrix for Devils Lake Study Alternatives.......................... 5-63 

5-6 Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost Effectiveness, 

 Lake Stage Effectiveness, and Water Quality – Wet 

 Future Scenario ............................................................................. 5-70 

5-7 State of North Dakota Water Quality Standards for the 

 Red River of the North.................................................................. 5-72 

5-8 State of North Dakota Water Quality Standards for the 

 Sheyenne River............................................................................. 5-73 

5-9 State of Minnesota Water Quality Standards for the Red 

 River of the North ......................................................................... 5-76 

5-10 International Joint Commission Boundary Waters Water 

 Quality Objectives, Red River of the North.................................. 5-77 

5-11 Water Quality Effects, Sulfate – Percent of Time Exceeding 

 250 mg/l During First 10 Years (2005-2014) ............................... 5-78 

5-12 Water Quality Effects, TDS – Percent of Time Exceeding 

 500 mg/l During First 10 Years (2005-2014) ............................... 5-78 

5-13 Water Quality Effects, Sulfate – Percent of Time Exceeding 

 450 mg/l During First 10 Years (2005-2014) ............................... 5-78 

5-14 Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost Effectiveness, 

 Lake Stage Effectiveness, and Water Quality, Moderate 

 Future Scenario (1455) ................................................................. 5-99 

5-15 Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost Effectiveness, 

 Lake Stage Effectiveness, and Water Quality, Moderate 

 Future Scenario (1450) ................................................................. 5-101 

5-16 State’s Proposed Temporary Outlet Operated Indefinitely.............. 5-105 

5-17 Dry Lake Diversion Economic Analysis......................................... 5-115 

5-18 Matrix of Alternatives – Other Considerations................................ 5-116 

5-19 Most Likely Future Without Project – Summary of Economics 

 Analysis – Flood Protection Strategies at First Action Level....... 5-130 

xi
Table of Contents (cont) 

LIST OF TABLES (cont) 

Number Page

5-20 Most Likely Future Without Project – Lake Levels for Flood 

 Protection – Flood Protection Strategies at First Action Level .... 5-131 

5-21 Most Likely Future Without Project – Economics Summary – 

 Flood Protection Strategies up to Lake Level 1463...................... 5-132 

5-22 Estimated Cost, Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet Plan .......................... 5-149 

5-23 Pelican Lake 300 cfs Outlet Economic Analysis............................. 5-150 

5-24 Roads Acting as Dams – History of Flood Protection..................... 5-155 

5-25 Expanded Infrastructure Economics Summary – Flood 

 Protection Strategies for First Increment ...................................... 5-157 

5-26 Expanded Infrastructure Economics Summary – Flood 

 Protection Strategies up to Lake Level 1463 ................................ 5-158 

5-27 “Benefit-Cost Ratios” for Alternatives Being Evaluated in Detail.. 5-158 

6-1 Stochastic Analysis Impact Matrix .................................................. 6-3 

6-2 2000 County Population Composition, Devils Lake Study Area .... 6-13 

6-3 Population Profile of Census Block Groups Along 

 Outlet/Overflow Routes, 2000...................................................... 6-14 

6-4 Populations in Poverty by County, 1997 ......................................... 6-21 

6-5 Percent of Geographic Unit in Land Use Category ......................... 6-30 

6-6 Land Use at the Upper Basin Storage Sites..................................... 6-38 

6-7 Land Use along the Sheyenne River................................................ 6-64 

6-8 Summarized Project Results: Screening of All Devils Lake Taxa 

 and Automatically Listed Taxa, with Recommendations for 

 Further Action............................................................................... 6-70 

6-9 Scenario Analysis Impact Matrix..................................................... 6-87 

6-10 Comparison of Lake Level Probability Estimates Made in 

 1994, 1995, 1998 and 1999 with the Actual Peak Lake 

 Levels Reached from 1994 through 1999..................................... 6-103 

6-11 Comparison of Selected Outlet Plan and No Outlet ........................ 6-104 

6-12 Relative Risk of Building or Not Building an Outlet ...................... 6-107 

7-1 Likely Future Without Project Features - Estimated Real Estate 

 Costs ........................................................................................... 7-21 

xii
Table of Contents (cont) 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Page

S-1 Benefit-Cost Ratio by Lake Elevation ............................................. S-6 

S-2 Relative Water Quality Impacts (Natural Overflow

 and Controlled Outlet Alternatives).............................................. S-8 

3-1 City of Devils Lake Levee System .................................................. 3-9 

4-1 Location of Devils Lake Basin ........................................................ 4-2 

4-2 Devils Lake Historic Records.......................................................... 4-2 

4-3 Devils Lake Fluctuations – 4,000 Years.......................................... 4-3 

4-4 Devils Lake and Vicinity ................................................................. 4-4 

4-5 Devils Lake – West-to-East Cross Section ...................................... 4-5 

4-6 Devils Lake at Various Elevations................................................... 4-6 

4-7 Devils Lake Elevation-Area Relationship ....................................... 4-7 

4-8 Devils Lake Elevation-Volume Relationship .................................. 4-7 

5-1 Rating Curve, Devils Lake to Stump Lake, Existing Conditions.... 5-2 

5-2 Stump Lake (Tolna Coulee) Elevation-Discharge Rating Curves... 5-3 

5-3 Features Adjacent to Devils Lake .................................................... 5-31 

5-4 Devils Lake Basin............................................................................ 5-38 

5-5 West End Alternative Features........................................................ 5-39 

5-6 Devils Lake: Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years ...................... 5-61 

5-7 Devils Lake Elevation – Wet Future................................................ 5-71 

5-8 Main Bay Water Quality – Wet Future Scenario............................. 5-75 

5-9 Sulfate Effects – Wet Future at Valley City, ND............................. 5-79 

5-10 TDS Effects – Wet Future at Halstad, MN...................................... 5-79 

5-11 TDS Effects – Wet Future at Emerson, MB .................................... 5-79 

5-12 Phosphorus Concentrations in Upper Sheyenne River.................... 5-82 

5-13 Phosphorus Loads to Lake Ashtabula.............................................. 5-83 

5-14 Phosphorus Concentrations below Lake Ashtabula......................... 5-84 

5-15 Phosphorus Concentrations on the Red River at Halstad ................ 5-85 

5-16 Phosphorus Loadings on the Red River at Emerson........................ 5-85 

5-17 Total Hardness – Wet Future at Halstad, MN.................................. 5-87 

5-18 Total Hardness – Moderate 1455 scenario at Halstad, MN............. 5-87 

5-19 Total Hardness – Moderate 1455 scenario at Grand Forks, ND...... 5-88 

5-20 Total Hardness – Moderate 1455 scenario at Emerson, MB ........... 5-88 

5-21 Sodium Effects – Wet Future at Cooperstown, ND......................... 5-89 

5-22 Sodium Effects – Moderate 1455 scenario at Halstad, MN............. 5-90 

5-23 Chloride Effects – Wet Future at Cooperstown, ND....................... 5-90 

5-24 Chloride Effects – Wet Future at Halstad, MN................................ 5-90 

5-25 Mercury Effects – Lake Sites........................................................... 5-92 

5-26 Mercury Effects – Stream Sites ....................................................... 5-92 

5-27 Sulfate Effects – Wet Future at Valley City, ND............................. 5-95 

5-28 TDS Effects – Wet Future at Halstad, MN...................................... 5-95 

xiii
Table of Contents (cont) 

LIST OF FIGURES (cont) 

Number Page

5-29 TDS Effects – Wet Future at Emerson, MB .................................... 5-96 

5-30 Devils Lake Elevation Scenarios..................................................... 5-98 

5-31 Devils Lake Elevation Moderate Trace 1455 .................................. 5-100 

5-32 Devils Lake Elevation Moderate Trace 1450 .................................. 5-102 

5-33 Devils Lake Elevation with Erosion of Tolna Coulee Outlet .......... 5-102 

5-34 Peak Elevation Reduction as a Function of mg/l Constraint ........... 5-106 

5-35 Effect of Pumping Constraints, Wet Scenario ................................. 5-107 

5-36 Effect of Pumping Constraints, Moderate Future, Maximum 

 Lake Level 1455 ........................................................................... 5-107 

5-37 Effect of Pumping Constraints, Moderate Future, Maximum 

 Lake Level 1450 ........................................................................... 5-107 

5-38 Elevation Plot, Pelican Lake Outlet, Wet Scenario ......................... 5-108 

5-39 Elevation Plot, Pelican Lake Outlet, Moderate 1455 Scenario........ 5-108 

5-40 Elevation Plot, Pelican Lake Outlet, Moderate 1450 Scenario........ 5-108 

5-41 Relative TDS Concentration Effect at Valley City, Wet Scenario .. 5-109 

5-42 Relative TDS Concentration Effect at Valley City, Moderate 

Future Maximum Lake Level 1455 ............................................. 5-109 

5-43 TDS Exceedances at Halstad, Wet Scenario.................................... 5-111 

5-44 TDS Exceedances at Halstad, Moderate Scenario........................... 5-112 

5-45 Results of Sensitivity Runs, with and without Dry Lake 

 Diversion....................................................................................... 5-114 

5-46 Cumulative Exceedance Levels for Devils Lake 1% Probability.... 5-124 

5-47 Infrastructure Protection Costs by Elevation ................................... 5-133 

5-48 Dry Lake Diversion.......................................................................... 5-134 

5-49 Proposed Devils Lake Outlet ........................................................... 5-136 

5-50 Expanded Infrastructure Features.................................................... 5-153 

6-1 Probability of Reaching Lake Level by Year X............................... 6-5 

6-2 Devils Lake Outlet Flow.................................................................. 6-56 

6-3 Outlet Flow at Cooperstown – Year 2017 ....................................... 6-57 

6-4 Aquatic Habitat Sampling, Upper Sheyenne River ......................... 6-61 

6-5 Aquatic Habitat Sampling Downstream of Kindred........................ 6-61 

6-6 Potential Locations for Mitigation and Monitoring Sites................ 6-77 

6-7 Overview of Cultural and Erosion Protection Sites......................... 6-82 

6-8 Benefit-Cost Ratio by Lake Elevation ............................................. 6-106 

7-1 Estates.............................................................................................. 7-14 

7-2 Sponsor Assessment......................................................................... 7-18 

7-3 Sponsor Assessments....................................................................... 7-25 

7-4 Sponsor Assessment......................................................................... 7-31 

xiv
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 

ACHP - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADT - Average Daily Traffic 

ARCOMP - Bayesian Autoregressive Modeling Approach 

ARFIMA - Fractionally Integrated Autoregressive Moving Average Model 

ASA - Assistant Secretary of the Army 

BCR - Benefit-Cost Ratio 

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BNSF - Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

BWT – Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 

CCA - Canonical Correspondence Analysis 

CCI - Construction Cost Index 

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations 

CL - Chloride 

CRP - Conservation Reserve Program 

CDBG - Community Development Block Grants 

CFS - Cubic Feet per Second 

CWA – Clean Water Act 

DEM - Digital Elevation Model 

dS/m - deci-Siemens per meter 

DO - Dissolved Oxygen 

DSS - Data Storage System 

DTM - Digital Terrain Model 

DOM - Dissolved Organic Material 

EC - Electrical Conductivity 

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement 

EIP - Expanded Infrastructure Protection 

ENR - Engineering News Record (Building Index) 

ERDC - Engineer Research and Development Center 

EO - Executive Order 

FAM - Feature Analysis Model 

FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency

fps – feet per second 

Ft - Feet 

GeoRAS - Geospatial River Analysis System

GI - General Investigations (program) 

GIS - Geographic Information Systems 

GUI - Graphical User Interface 

HEC - Hydrologic Engineering Center 

HME - Hazard Mitigation Economics 

HMS – Hydrologic Modeling System 

H5QGUI – (Downstream Hydraulic Model for) Graphical User Interface 

xv
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS (cont)

HRD - Total Hardness 

HTRW - Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste 

HUD - Housing and Urban Development 

IFIM - Instream Flow Incremental Methodology 

IHA - Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration 

IJC – International Joint Commission 

ITR - Independent Technical Review 

IWR - Institute for Water Resources 

LIDAR - Light Detection and Ranging 

LER - Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way 

LERRD’s - Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations, and dredged material 

 Disposal areas 

LRHSC - Lake Region Human Service Center 

LTM - Landsat Thematic Mapper 

MCACES – Micro Computer Aided Cost Engineering System 

MGD - Million Gallons per Day 

mg/l - Milligrams per Liter msl - Mean Sea Level 

MVD - Mississippi Valley Division 

MWTF - Municipal Water Treatment Facilities 

NAS - National Academy of Sciences 

NASS – National Agricultural Statistics Service 

NBI – National Bridge Inventory 

NCDC - National Climatic Data Center 

NCHRD - Non-Carbonate Hardness 

NCPC - North Central Planning Council 

NDGS - North Dakota Geological Survey 

NDSWC - North Dakota State Water Commission 

NED - National Economic Development 

NIMBY - Not In My BackYard 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program 

NH3 - Ammonia 

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act 

NO3 - Nitrate 

NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP - National Register of Historic Places 

NWI - National Wetlands Inventory 

OMRR&R - Operation and Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Repair, and Replacement 

O&M - Operation and Maintenance 

P&G - Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related 

 Land Resources Implementation Studies (developed in 1983 to guide the formulation 

 and evaluation studies of the major Federal water resource development agencies) 

PBOC - Potential Biota of Concern 

PCA - Project Cooperation Agreement 

xvi
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS (cont)

PDF - Probability Distribution Function 

PED - Preconstruction Engineering and Design 

PHABSIM - Physical Habitat Simulation 

PL - Public Law 

PL300/300 - Sample nomenclature for outlet alternatives (Pelican Lake Outlet with 

 design capacity of 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) and sulfate constraint of 

 300 milligrams per liter (mg/l) 

PMF - Probable Maximum Flood 

PMP - Project Management Plan 

PO4 - Phosphate 

PRINET - Pothole-River Networked Watershed Model 

PVWC - Pembina Valley Water Cooperative Inc. 

Q - flow or discharge, usually expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs) 

RAS - River Analysis System

REDs - Regional Economic Damages 

REP - Real Estate Plan 

SAR - Sodium adsorption ratio 

SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office 

SIA - Social Impact Assessments 

SLP - Sea level pressure 

SO4 - Sulfate 

SPF - Standard project flood 

SSURGO - (digital soils data) 

STATSGO - State Soil Geographic Database 

TCP - Traditional Cultural Properties Analysis 

TDS - Total Dissolved Solids 

TIC - Total Inorganic Carbon 

TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load 

TOC - Total Organic Carbon 

TSS - Particulate organic material 

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS - United States Geological Survey 

UBS - Upper Basin Storage 

USGS 5-Box Model - Hydrologic and water quality mass balance models used for in-lake 

evaluations 

UWRL - Utah Water Research Laboratory 

WRC - Water Resources Council 

WUA - Weighted Usable Area 

YOY - Young Of the Year 

xvii
SUMMARY 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS

In accordance with the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003, Division D of 

Public Law 108-7, and other laws, the Corps has prepared the Final Integrated Planning Report 

and Environmental Impact Statement for Devils Lake, North Dakota, to describe study 

methodology, alternatives evaluated, and findings. The Corps has identified the Pelican Lake 

300 cubic feet per second (cfs) outlet plan as the preferred alternative. Pursuant to Public Law 

108-7, Congress directed the Corps to construct an emergency outlet from Devils Lake to the 

Sheyenne River, subject to several conditions, including the Secretary of the State providing 

assurances that the project will not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Public Law 

108-7 removed the traditional requirements regarding economic justification and provided 

instead that the justification for the emergency outlet shall be fully described, including the 

analysis of benefits and costs. 

In early March 2003, Devils Lake was at elevation 1446.9 feet above mean sea level (msl), 

having fallen about 1.4 feet from the highest level ever recorded, 1448.33 in July 2001. Devils 

Lake is a terminal lake with no outlet at the current elevation. The lake has naturally spilled into 

the Sheyenne River several times in geologic history. The last spill is estimated to have occurred 

800 to 1,200 years ago. The Devils Lake region has experienced a number of years of unusually 

wet conditions. The lake has risen over 25 feet since 1993. More than 500 homes have been 

destroyed or relocated and over $350 million in Federal emergency funding has been expended 

to relocate people, raise roads, and build levees to combat the flooding. The natural overflow 

elevation for the lake is elevation 1459 feet msl. 

 

The St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prepared this Integrated Planning 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement to present information on the results of its studies to 

address flooding problems associated with the rising levels of Devils Lake in North Dakota, and 

to analyze the effects of the alternatives. 

This report consists of an Integrated Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement. The 

primary purposes of this Integrated Report, in accordance with the authorizing legislation, are: 1) 

to implement “tiering” as permitted by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation 40 

C.F.R. 1508.28, and 2) to evaluate an outlet plan (proposed action being evaluated) and present a 

preferred outlet alternative. Tiering procedures allow for supplemental EIS documentation. 

The Federal environmental review process for this project consisted of a discussion of the plan 

selection process, potential impacts of alternatives, potential mitigation features for the direct 

impacts of construction, and future mitigation plans and studies. Further coordination is needed 

with respect to compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the Clean Water Act. 

Additional data acquisition and monitoring will be required to further define and evaluate the 

operational impacts of an outlet. Based on the results of these evaluations, supplemental 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation will be prepared as required. 

S-1
The identified preferred alternative is the Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet plan. The Pelican Lake 300 

cfs outlet would consist of pumping facilities, an open channel, a buried pipeline, and mitigation 

features. The outlet would be constructed to a maximum capacity of 300 cfs and would be 

operated annually for 7 months from May through November. Operation would be constrained by 

channel capacity and a 300 milligrams per liter (mg/l) sulfate concentration at the discharge point 

on the Sheyenne River. 

Alternatives discussed in the Integrated Report and EIS include other outlet plans, upper basin 

storage/watershed management, infrastructure protection, raising the natural outlet, combination 

plans, and no action. Infrastructure protection includes raising roads and levees, relocations, and 

similar actions. Upper basin storage/watershed management consists of increasing the available 

storage for runoff in upper basin depressions, thus reducing the water that would otherwise flow 

into Devils Lake. This alternative may also include land management measures such as 

increasing the use of irrigation, increasing the amount of land in conservation reserve and similar 

programs, and other land management practices. 

A significant portion of the Corps of Engineers’ historic expertise has dealt with riverine 

hydrology. In riverine hydrology, small changes in precipitation and evaporation are not 

significant considerations for hydrometeorological phenomena. Therefore, climate is assumed to 

be stationary (or stable) for the analysis of riverine systems. As a result, the Corps of Engineers’ 

guidelines for hydrologic analysis generally assume climate stationarity. 

The assumption of climate stationarity is key to the analysis of the Devils Lake basin. This 

assumption means that climatic conditions in the basin in the “recent” past are representative of 

climatic conditions during the foreseeable future. The climate in the Devils Lake basin changed 

significantly during the late 1970’s, but has remained relatively homogeneous from 1980 to the 

present. Therefore, for the stochastic analysis, the “recent” past is defined as the period 1980-

1999. Although it is unknown exactly how long the wet conditions of the 1990s may persist, or 

if even wetter conditions may be in store in the future, climate during the next 10 to15 years is 

assumed to be similar to climate during the period 1980-1999. Climate more than 10 to 15 years 

into the future was assumed to be similar to the somewhat drier period of 1950-1999. 

There is considerable debate within the scientific community, however, regarding the stationarity 

of climate in the Devils Lake basin. In fact, it has been argued by some that climate in the Devils 

Lake basin may be nonstationary for a variety of reasons, such as the existence of natural climate 

cycles caused by global ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns or the existence of global 

warming due to anthropogenic causes. 

To assess the effects of a hydroclimatological phenomenon on lake level probabilities of a 

terminal lake, both rainfall/runoff and evaporation are important considerations because they are 

cumulative in their impact and are subject to persistent weather patterns. If climate is 

nonstationary, then stage in a terminal lake such as Devils Lake will experience wide variability. 

Even small changes in precipitation or evaporation can have significant effects on lake levels, 

since these changes occur over the 3,800-square-mile drainage basin. 

S-2
Table S-1 illustrates the uncertainty in forecasting lake levels. It is a historic summary of 

projected probabilities of lake stages from 1994 through 1999. As can be seen, on many 

occasions actual stages were given only a very slight chance (1 to 3 percent) of occurring. The 

analysis shows that, from a probability standpoint, the current conditions at Devils Lake are 

indeed a rare event. 

The uncertainty in forecasting lake levels has made it difficult to specifically identify the risks 

associated with the decision to build an outlet. Based on the probabilities in 1994 of Devils Lake 

rising in future years, deciding to invest in an outlet in 1994 would have been a risky proposition 

in terms of economic feasibility. In 1994, the risk was low that the lake would continue to rise, 

causing additional flood damage or additional investment in protecting the infrastructure. Hence, 

in 1994, an outlet was seen as not likely to be necessary. Conversely, the risk was high that, if an 

outlet were built, it would likely sit idle for most of the time and the investment would be open to 

criticism since the probability of the lake rising (from a 1994 perspective) was so low. 

Table S-1 

Comparison of Lake Level Probability Estimates Made in 1994, 1995, 1998 and 1999

with the Actual Peak Lake Levels Reached from 1994 through 1999 

Devils Lake, North Dakota 

Indicated Probability of Reaching or Exceeding the Actual Lake 

Level 

Year Elevation

Estimates Made 

in Spring 1994

Estimates Made 

in Spring 1995 

Estimates Made 

in Spring 1998

Estimates Made 

in Spring 1999 

1994 1430.7 36%

1995 1435.9 3% 12%

1996 1437.8 3% 12%

1997 1443.0 Less than 1% 2% 

1998 1444.7 Less than 1% 2% 42% 

1999 1447.5 * Less than 1% Less than 1% 6% 5% 

1% Chance Level 1443.4 1446.6 1453.0 1453.4 

0.2% Chance Level 1457.3 

(*) Based on forecast made in April 1999. 

Given the uncertainty and controversy around the ability to forecast future lake stages and given 

the experience of the past 10 years, one could view the construction of an outlet from a different 

perspective, as an insurance policy, rather than an investment. That is, what is the relative risk of

not building an outlet, versus building an outlet, and not needing it? Risk avoidance in light of 

the rapid rise in lake elevation from 1993 to 1999 and the potential for continued rise in water 

levels was considered in evaluating the alternatives. 

Public Law 108-7 requires the Corps to fully describe the justification for an emergency outlet in 

the project plan documents, including the analysis of benefits and costs. Table S-2 presents the 

relative benefit-cost ratios, expected lake stages, probabilities of those stages being reached or 

exceeded, and risks associated with building or not building the preferred outlet plan, the Pelican

S-3
Lake 300-cfs outlet. The information is shown for the stochastic analysis, as well as for three 

scenarios evaluated. 

Table S-2 

Comparison of Selected Outlet Plan and No Outlet

Stochastic Wet Scenario 1455 Scenario 1450 Scenario

Benefit-Cost Ratio

 of Outlet 0.19 1.54 0.55 0.13

Expected

 Stage w/o Outlet 1450.06 1460.6 1454.9 1450.0

Probability of Stage

 w/o Outlet be Exceeded 50% 5.5% 20.8% 50.6%

Expected Lake

 Stage w/ Outlet 1449.33 1457.5 1452.1 1448.9

Increased Risks Natural Overflow

 w/o Outlet Lake damages with Lake damages with Lake damages with Lake damages with

extra 0.5-ft.stage extra 3.1-ft.stage extra 2.8-ft.stage extra 1.1-ft.stage

Increased Risks Downstream Impacts Downstream Impacts Downstream Impacts Downstream Impacts

 w/ Outlet

Note: The exceedance probabilities shown in the above table represent the likelihood of the 

respective lake stages being reached or exceeded during the next 50 years based on 10,000 

traces used in the stochastic analysis. The benefit-cost ratios for the scenarios are not related 

to these probabilities, since a specific scenario is assumed to have a 100-percent chance of 

occurring for each scenario evaluated. 

In considering risk for Devils Lake, it is important to understand the differences in regional 

damages between lake and river flooding. Typically, the Corps does not include regional 

damages in its economic analysis, even though such damages may occur in the region. When a 

river floods, the water recedes and the floodplain is available for use again. The risk of flooding 

in subsequent years is no higher than it was in the flooded year, and some reasonable use can be 

made of the floodplain. When Devils Lake hits a new high elevation, however, the land may not

be available for many years. Over 80,000 acres of land have been inundated since 1993. 

Accordingly, the regional impacts may be very significant. 

As discussed above, when the water level rises in a closed basin, it does not go back down except 

by evaporation. Additional flooding then accumulates upon the existing floodwaters. 

Depending on the climatic future, the lake may either go up or down, and any of the alternatives 

may be more or less effective. For a wet future scenario, a discharge from a natural overflow 

could approach 6,000 cfs, assuming the full extent of erosion, and carry as much as 940,000 

cubic yards of material into the Sheyenne River. Water quality would be significantly affected, 

with sulfate concentrations increasing from a median base condition of about 200 mg/l to 1,600 

mg/l, making alternative water supplies mandatory for downstream communities such as Valley 

S-4
City. Other communities, such as Fargo and Grand Forks, will have difficulty providing safe and 

aesthetically acceptable drinking water. A probability of full erosion occurring has not been 

determined but would probably be small and, based on past emergency measures taken in the 

area, was assumed to be prevented in the future without-project condition. 

The base condition for the wet future scenario shows the lake reaching an overflow elevation in 

about year 2015. The Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet (preferred outlet plan) would limit the 

maximum stage to 1457 and generally result in lake stages about 3 feet lower than the base 

condition. The continued rise of the lake affects the viability of the regional economy and 

general well-being of the Devils Lake area. The farmland (approximately 50,000 acres of land 

within this 3-foot band), homes, roads, and other infrastructure features would not be flooded or 

affected by higher groundwater levels under this scenario. 

As an example of a more moderate scenario, for a scenario where the lake would reach elevation 

1455 without an outlet, the Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet is able to limit the maximum stage to 

elevation 1452, or a 3-foot reduction, (with approximately 35,000 acres of land in this band).

Although there is a low probability of occurrence, the potential effects associated with a natural 

overflow, together with the opportunity to reduce the damages around Devils Lake with a 

reduced rate of rise on the lake, make the outlet plan the preferred option. 

The infrastructure protection alternative only, without an outlet, does not address the potential 

effects of a natural overflow. However, under some climatic futures, the lake would continue to 

rise and overflow, even if an outlet were constructed. Many infrastructure protection measures 

would still be required, even with construction and operation of this outlet. From an economic 

standpoint, continuing to protect infrastructure features around the lake is a wise investment of 

funds, because the protection is constructed incrementally as needed and is shown to be costeffective under the stochastic approach and the wet future scenario (benefit-cost ratios were not 

determined for this alternative for the moderate scenarios). The preferred outlet alternative is 

shown to be cost-effective under the wet future scenario, but not for the stochastic or other 

scenarios. 

Using the stochastic analysis, an outlet would reduce the chance of an overflow from 9.4 percent 

to 4.6 percent (more than a 50-percent reduction in the chance of an overflow) over the withoutproject conditions. The risk still exists that, because of the limited effectiveness of a constrained 

outlet, the lake may still rise, it may still overflow, and residents may be disappointed that the 

outlet does not completely solve their flooding problem.

There is the investment risk of building an outlet that may not be needed. This can be inferred 

from the probability of the lake reaching or exceeding a particular elevation. Under the withoutproject future condition, there is a 50.6-percent chance that the lake will reach or exceed 

elevation 1450 over the next 50 years. Therefore, there is about a 50-percent chance that the lake 

will hold relatively steady or decline and that an outlet would be operated only minimally. On 

the basis of the scenarios analyzed, there is a 6.5-percent chance that in the next 15 years the lake 

will reach or exceed elevation 1458, the approximate lake stage showing economic viability. 

S-5
Therefore, there is about a 93.5-percent chance that if an outlet were built it would not be 

economically beneficial on a national level of evaluation.

 

As shown on Figure S-1 and in Table S-3, the relative risk of building or not building an outlet 

could be expressed in terms of costs that could be expected with a particular scenario occurring 

in the future. Figure S-1 illustrates the relationship between future lake elevation and the 

expected benefit-cost ratio for an outlet. The figure shows that for an outlet to be economically 

feasible, the lake must reach an elevation of at least 1458 in fifteen years. If the lake is expected 

to rise above 1458, the expected benefit-cost ratio will increase. Quadrants A and B represent all 

scenarios in which the lake will not reach 1458 in fifteen years, a situation with a 93.5-percent 

chance of occurrence. Moderate Future 1 (lake peak of 1450) may be representative of these 

scenarios. An outlet built among these scenarios will not be feasible. For example, an outlet 

built under the Moderate Future 1 scenario will cost approximately $186.5 million, but will 

reduce damages around the lake and downstream along the Sheyenne and Red Rivers by only 

$46 million.

 

Table S-3: Relative Costs and Damages . E

 Lake E

Benefit-Cost Ratio by Lake Elevation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465

levation

Be

n

e

fit-Co

st Ratio

Quadrant A - Probabiilty of not

reaching Elevation 1458 = 93.5%

Quadrant C - Probability of reaching 

levation 1458 or higher = 6.5%.

Quadrant B Quadrant D

Outlet built

------------------>

<------------------------

Outlet n

ot built

Moderate 

Future 2

Wet Future

Moderate 

Future 1 Stochastic

Figure S-1: Benefit-Cost Ratio by Lake Elevation 

S-6
Quadrants C and D represent those scenarios in which an outlet is feasible (lake elevation above 

1458). There is a 6.5-percent chance of this occurrence in the next 15 years. The Wet Future 

scenario (lake elevation peaking at 1460) may be representative of these scenarios. If an outlet is 

built costing $186.5 million, damages in the amount of $577 million (present value basis) will 

still occur under the Wet Future scenario. If a decision is made not to build an outlet, the outlet 

costs of $186.5 million will be saved, but an additional $340 million in damages around the lake

and downstream along the rivers, for a total of $917 million, will occur. The risk of not building 

an outlet means that there is a 6.5-percent chance that the lake will rise to a height that is 

sufficient to generate enough damages that could have justified construction of the outlet. 

 Table S-3: Relative Risk of Building or Not Building an Outlet 

 (Costs expressed in $ million's)

Quadrant A B C D

Scenario [5] Moderate Future 1 Moderate Future 1 Wet Future Wet Future

(1450) With Outlet [4] (1450) W/out Outlet With Outlet [4] Without Outlet

Max Lake Stage (feet above msl) 1447 1450 1457 1460

PV of Future Emergency

 Costs and Damages (Lake) $54.2 $102.2 $381.1 $673.9

Downstream Damages and Costs

 (w/out erosion of natural outlet) [1] $229.4 $227.4 $195.9 $242.7

Total Damages and Costs

 (w/out erosion of natural outlet) [1] $283.6 $329.6 $577.0 $916.6

Damage and Cost Reduction

 Benefits due to Outlet $46.0 $339.6

Outlet First Costs $186.5 $186.5

PV of Net Benefits -$140.5 $153.1

Downstream Damages and Costs

 (with erosion of natural outlet) [2] $229.4 $227.4 $195.9 $315.2

Total Damages and Costs

 (with erosion of natural outlet) [2] $283.6 $329.6 $577.0 $989.1

Damage and Cost Reduction

 Benefits due to Outlet $46.0 $412.1

Outlet First Costs $186.5 $186.5

PV of Net Benefits -$140.5 $225.6

[1] Assumed to be the most likely future condition - expected overflow of 550 cfs

[2] Estimated to reach maximum discharge of 6,000 cfs; would only occur under wet future without

 an outlet; with-erosion scenario evaluated using only the West Bay outlet ---> results from this

 analysis used as a proxy for the equivalent value for the Pelican Lake outlet.

[3] Monetary values expressed in Present Value terms as million $'s

[4] With outlet means with Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet

[5] Scenarios are representative of all traces that fall within the range indicated by the Quadrant

S-7
There has also been considerable discussion about the potential negative impacts of a natural 

overflow from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River. Although the downstream effects of a 

natural overflow and a constructed outlet may be similar, there are some important differences. 

The effects of a natural overflow would be more short-term and drastic because of the magnitude 

of the event. The effects of an outlet are more long-term, subtle, and controllable, especially as 

related to some of the terrestrial and aquatic resources. If an outlet is constructed and the lake is 

still rising or even holding steady, the outlet would probably be operated. Downstream effects 

due to a natural overflow have a 9.4 percent chance of occurring in 50 years without an outlet. If

an outlet is constructed and operated, downstream effects due to the operation of a constructed 

outlet would occur, even if the lake level does not go any higher. 

Figure S-2 illustrates relative water quality impacts of water flowing to the Sheyenne River from

Devils Lake for a natural overflow and from a controlled outlet from the Pelican Lake area. 

Figure S-2 illustrates the impact downstream at Cooperstown on the Sheyenne River with an 

assumed wet future scenario. The base condition (no outlet) assumes no erosion at the natural 

overflow. With this assumption, the overflow rate for this scenario would be 550 cfs. As a point 

of reference on Figure S-2, the standard for sulfate in the Sheyenne River is 450 mg/l. The 

median base condition has sulfate levels of approximately 200 mg/l. At the time of a natural 

overflow, this level increases by a factor of 8, to 1,600 mg/l, and remains over 700 mg/l for much 

of the 11-year period of overflow. Other alternatives shown on this figure are the Pelican Lake 

outlets for both a constrained 300-cfs operating plan and a 480-cfs unconstrained operating plan. 

The highest readings for sulfate levels with a constrained operating plan are approximately 250 

mg/l; for an unconstrained operating plan, the highest readings are in the range of 600 mg/l. 

Pelican Lake Wet Future - Cooperstown

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

20002003200620092012201520182021202420272030203320362039204220452048

SO4 (mg/l)

PL480

PL300

BASE

 

Figure S-2: Relative Water Quality Impacts (Natural Overflow

and Controlled Outlet Alternatives) 

S-8
As stated, the above discussion is based on no erosion at the natural overflow. Since it is 

tivity

0 cfs).

e

ter

The conclusions of the Integrated Report/EIS are summarized below. 

n the basis of studies and coordination, the Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet alternative has been 

al

he current mitigation proposal acknowledges potential effects on aquatic and riparian resources 

of

nt on

itigation measures are proposed to help ensure the recovery of the system after the outlet has 

sion

ing

unknown whether measures will be taken to minimize erosion at the natural outlet, a sensi

analysis was performed to evaluate the impacts of assuming a reasonable rate of erosion at the 

natural outlet for the wet future scenario. If the natural overflow area were to erode, it is 

estimated that the peak discharge of 6,000 cfs could be expected (compared to assumed 55

Under the eroded conditions, the peak sulfate concentrations would be similar to those shown on 

Figure S-2 (1,600 mg/l), but the concentrations would drop to a range of 300 to 400 mg/l after 

the first few years. Downstream effects resulting from the erosion of the natural outlet would b

significant. There would be increased sedimentation in the Sheyenne River and Lake Ashtabula. 

Erosion would also increase in the Sheyenne River. There would be substantial effects to 

downstream aquatic resources on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. Higher flows, changed wa

quality, sedimentation, erosion, increased groundwater levels, and overbank flooding would 

affect farms, buildings, roads, bridges, water supply for downstream communities, and would

result in loss of aquatic and riparian habitats. 

O

identified to be the best outlet plan to meet the purpose and objectives of the project. The actu

operating plan may be further refined to minimize downstream water quality impacts, in concert 

with minimizing lake stage increases. The outlet discharge evaluated for impacts is constrained 

such that sulfate levels and flow rate in the Sheyenne River do not exceed 300 mg/l or 600 cfs, 

respectively, at the insertion point. These constraints are based on minimizing downstream

water quality impacts, while balanced with effectiveness of lake stage reduction. The sulfate

standard in the Sheyenne River is 450 mg/l, and the nominal channel capacity in the upper 

Sheyenne River is approximately 600 cfs. 

T

but assumes that if the ecological integrity of the Sheyenne River and the riparian corridor is 

maintained, the river’s natural state will recover upon cessation of project operation. Because

the inability to define how the alternatives would actually be constructed and operated, the 

limited precision of modeling techniques, and the lack of detailed system-wide information

regarding terrestrial and aquatic species and habitat distribution, many of the operational impacts 

can not be quantified. The conclusions regarding potential impacts are based on the best 

available information. However, the eventual occurrence of any impacts is highly depende

the eventual length of operation and the final operational constraints. Therefore, there is a high 

level of uncertainty with respect to the actual occurrence, location, and timing of potential 

effects. 

M

ceased operation. Mitigation features include design features to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects, the acquisition and management of approximately 6,000 acres of riparian habitat, ero

protection to minimize the effects of turbidity and sedimentation, high flow bypass channels to 

maintain critical aquatic habitat, and a sand filter to minimize the risk of biota transfer. The 

mitigation proposal adopts an adaptive management approach by including extensive monitor

to: (1) establish a reliable reflection of baseline conditions on the Sheyenne River prior to outlet 

S-9
operation, (2) document expected level of effects associated with outlet operation, and (3) ensure

that mitigation features were sufficient to allow recovery of aquatic resources on the Sheyenne 

River once operation of the outlet has ceased. Monitoring activities to establish baseline

conditions and monitoring costs for the first 10 years of operation are proposed as first cos

this time, with uncertainty regarding future climatic conditions, it appears to be reasonable to 

include the monitoring costs for the first 10 years of operation as a project cost. 

ts. At

n outlet is not economically justified using methods that would determine expected net benefits 

oted

n outlet would drain water from the lake, thereby slowing or eliminating its rise or hastening its 

l

r

ontinued infrastructure protection would result in protection of the major features in the basin 

zed

t,

ikely

pper basin storage/watershed management consists of storing water in depressions in the upper 

basin. This alternative would result in the conversion of agricultural lands to intermittent or 

A

by producing probability-weighted benefits and costs. However, there is uncertainty in 

forecasting lake levels as well as risk of major impacts in the event of an overflow. As n

previously, in Public Law 108-7, the Congress removed the traditional requirements regarding

economic justification and provided instead that the justification for the emergency outlet shall

be fully described, including the analysis of the benefits and costs. 

A

fall. However, it would also increase concentrations of pollutants in the lake in the short term

because the outlet would drain the lake’s higher quality water. However, the decrease in water

quality would be greater if the same lake level reduction were achieved through evaporation. 

This may have an impact on aquatic resources in the lake, possibly resulting in decline or loss

sooner than under the future without-project conditions. The extent that an outlet would lower

peak lake levels depends on the future climatic conditions. Lower lake levels would accelerate 

vegetation growth in exposed areas that had been inundated. An outlet would have adverse 

effects in downstream receiving waters, including degraded water quality, increased erosion,

increased sedimentation, reduced aquatic habitat value, higher river stages, minimal increased

overbank flooding, extended duration of inundation, impeded river access, loss of aquatic 

resources, loss of riparian habitat, effects on agricultural uses, effects on water treatment 

facilities, social effects, cultural resource losses, effects on irrigation, and effects on Triba

resources. The mitigation features included with the project are intended to alleviate the 

construction and operation effects and help compensate landowners for the flow and wate

quality effects. Natural resource mitigation features would help the recovery of the system after 

the outlet has ceased operation. All of the operation effects would not be eliminated with the 

mitigation features. The intent is to alleviate the effects to the extent practicable. 

C

such as the City of Devils Lake, important facilities, and major roads. The construction of 

infrastructure features would not alleviate the disruption of social services, transportation 

systems, and loss of features that are not protected. Environmental effects would be locali

and include increased sedimentation and turbidity, effects on aquatic resources, losses due to 

acquisition of borrow material, and disruption of social services. From an economic standpoin

infrastructure protection is a wise investment of funds because this type of protection is 

constructed incrementally as it is needed. Continued infrastructure protection, the most l

future without a project, is economically justified using either the stochastic, the wet future 

scenario, or 1455 maximum lake level scenario approaches. 

U

S-10
permanent wetland storage sites. There would be significant effects on current land uses, loss of

agricultural lands, and benefits to wetland and wildlife resources. On the basis of the stochas

analysis, upper basin storage/watershed management is not economically justified, however, net 

benefits result under the wet future scenario. Further analysis to optimize the most cost-effective

plan for upper basin storage/watershed management as a complementary project feature, along 

with further evaluation of associated social, economic, and environmental effects, appears 

warranted. 

Having revi

tic

ewed and evaluated documents concerning the proposed action and views of other 

terested agencies and parties, the Corps of Engineers has identified the 300 cfs Pelican Lake 

f an outlet from Pelican Lake to the Sheyenne River. It 

ould include an open channel from Pelican Lake to the pump station located just north of 

ows

nd

plan is $186.5 million. Following applicable cost sharing 

ovisions, the Federal share of the total project cost will be $121,650,000 (65 percent) and the 

S process. Each area of

ontroversy or unresolved issue is summarized and addressed below. 

Public Law 108-7, the Congress removed traditional economic justification requirements and 

e Corps to fully describe the justification for an emergency outlet in the 

in

outlet as the preferred alternative. 

The preferred alternative consists o

w

Minnewaukan and a buried pipeline from the pump station to the Sheyenne River, with a total 

length of about 22 miles. A regulation reservoir would be located at the divide to regulate fl

to the Sheyenne River. The plan includes provisions to close Channel A during outlet operation

and divert flows from Dry Lake to the intake area of the outlet in Pelican Lake. The outlet 

operation would be constrained to a 600 cfs channel capacity (maximum outlet flow 300 cfs) and

a 300 mg/l sulfate constraint on the Sheyenne River. Other features of the plan include a sa

filter to address biota transfer concerns, erosion protection measures along the Sheyenne River, 

protection of cultural resource sites along the Sheyenne River, construction of by-pass channels

to alleviate effects to aquatic resources, water treatment for municipal and industrial water users,

the acquisition of 6,000 acres of riparian lands along the Sheyenne River for mitigation, and the 

acquisition of flowage easements. Long-term monitoring and adaptive management is also 

included to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation features and to determine the need for 

additional mitigation measures. 

The estimated cost of this outlet

pr

non-Federal share will be $64,850,000 (35 percent). Estimated annual operation and 

maintenance costs, which are to be borne by the Non-Federal sponsor, are estimated to be almost 

$3.0 million, however, this may vary dependent on future climate. 

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

This section describes areas of controversy identified during the EI

c

Areas of Controversy 

Benefit-Cost Analysis 

In

instead only required th

project plan documents, including the analysis of the benefits and costs. The Corps of Engineers 

traditionally recommends plans that show the greatest expected net benefits, where benefits 

S-11
exceed costs based on the probability of events (stochastic approach). As a standard process 

under the Principles and Guidelines, this is referred to as the National Economic Developmen

or NED, plan. A stochastic approach was used to determine whether any of the outlet plans m

that criterion. Stochastic modeling was based on an assumption of climate stationarity. The 

benefit-cost ratio of the selected outlet plan incorporating probabilities, or the stochastic 

approach, is 0.19. However, pursuant to Public Law 108-7, economic justification of an outle

no longer a requirement. 

Because of uncertainty an

t,

et 

t is

d differing scientific opinions regarding future climatic conditions in 

e Devils Lake basin, a scenario-based analysis was also performed. In situations of 

s,

lutions to

hile it has been asserted that alternatives to the outlet have not been fairly analyzed in this 

eport does include an analysis of alternatives. The report discusses 

t the

any contend that an outlet is not a solution to the problem at Devils Lake. They further 

s a limited effect on the lake levels, and other alternatives are either just

ited 

be

here is uncertainty over what future climatic conditions will prevail in the region. Some

cycle will continue, while others contend that future 

The

th

uncertainty, the Principles and Guidelines allow for development of alternative future condition

or scenarios. This scenario-based analysis was used to specifically address potential so

the problems in the basin if the recent wet conditions continue. Under the wet scenario 

approach, the benefit-cost ratio of the selected outlet plan was 1.54. 

Alternatives Analysis 

W

Integrated Report, the r

potential measures to address the rising lake levels, including upper basin storage/watershed 

management, infrastructure protection, and an outlet. This report contains conclusions abou

reasonableness and feasibility of these alternatives and the impacts associated with them. 

Preconstruction engineering and design concurrent with the EIS preparation of the identified 

outlet plan, in accordance with Public Laws 105-18 and 106-246, did not limit alternatives’

analysis and did not preclude selection of an alternative other than the preferred alternative. 

Effectiveness of Outlet 

M

contend that an outlet ha

as effective or should be used in conjunction with an outlet. It is true that the outlet has lim

effectiveness for some of the possible scenarios for future lake stages. Many also contend that 

any decrease in lake level is a risk reduction benefit and that the decision to proceed with the 

outlet should not be based solely on economics or the benefit-cost ratio. Under the stochastic 

model, the 300 cfs Pelican Lake outlet would reduce the probability of an overflow to the 

Sheyenne River in the next 50 years from 9.4 percent to 4.6 percent. Therefore, the outlet will

effective in reducing lake levels and downstream impacts under some scenarios. 

Future Without-Project Conditions

T

interests contend that the current wet

climatic conditions will tend to reflect the average conditions over the past 20 or 50 years.

cost-effectiveness of an outlet is dependent upon which future is assumed. The Integrated

Report identifies a stochastic (probability weighted) future and a wet scenario (similar to 7 wet 

years from 1993 to 1999) future and compares alternatives under both futures. 

S-12
Temporary Outlet in Future Conditions 

There is controversy over including the North Dakota temporary outlet in the future withoutproject conditions. North Dakota has pursued design and construction of a temporary outlet 

because it feels that construction of a permanent outlet will, at best, occur years into the future 

and something needs to be implemented soon. North Dakota completed much of the design for 

an outlet along the Peterson Coulee route, has also initiated construction of an access road and 

site preparation at the pump station area, and has approved funding for the Peterson Coulee 

channel portion of the outlet. There is a high probability for delay or suspension of the plan due 

to possible litigation and permitting issues. Therefore, the Corps is not including this outlet in 

the future without-project conditions analysis. However, to address concerns associated with the 

uncertainty of the implementation of a temporary outlet, a sensitivity analysis was completed that

assumes the temporary outlet is constructed and operated. The analysis included a discussion of 

the potential effect of the temporary outlet on lake levels, and how it would affect the economic 

feasibility of the Pelican Lake outlet alternative. This analysis showed that the benefit-cost ratio 

of the Pelican Lake outlet for a stochastic approach is reduced from 0.19 to 0.13 with a 

temporary outlet included in the future without-project conditions and from 1.54 to 1.17 for the 

wet future scenario approach. By Public Law 108-7, Congress removed the traditional economic 

justification requirement for construction of an outlet and only required a description of the 

justification, including an analysis of the benefits and costs. 

Biota Transfer 

Existing information shows low potential for transfer of biota from Devils Lake to the Red River 

drainage basin as a result of the outlet. Various agencies have indicated that additional studies 

are needed to identify biota in the various basins. 

In response to these concerns, field studies for the screening of fish pathogens have been 

conducted, a sand filter is proposed to minimize the risk of biota transfer, and the framework for 

a response plan to address invasive species has also been developed. The sand filter would be 

effective in removing all matter down to 2 microns and would provide incidental benefits from

the reduction in particulate mercury, nitrogen, and phosphorus. See Unresolved Issues, 

“Mitigation of Impacts.” 

Interconnectivity Between Devils Lake and Local Aquifers 

Reports containing analysis of the connection between Devils Lake and local aquifers dating 

back to 1986 were reviewed. These reports indicate there is little groundwater movement from 

Devils Lake to surrounding aquifers. 

Devils Lake is a regional depression both in surface topography and in groundwater levels. 

Groundwater levels in the basin are generally higher than lake levels in Devils Lake except very 

near the lake, and have been even higher in drier periods in the past. Therefore, rising lake levels 

would only tend to affect water levels very near the lake as they rise above local surface 

groundwater levels. The soils immediately surrounding Devils Lake have very low hydraulic 

conductivity. This is also generally true of all the significant deposits throughout the basin. 

Therefore, there are only small amounts of groundwater movement in either direction between 

the lake and the aquifers. With little groundwater movement to and from the lake, aquifer levels 

are much more influenced by precipitation, infiltration, and evapotranspiration than by lake 

S-13
levels. Lake levels are much more dependent on precipitation, inflow from runoff, and 

evaporation than on groundwater levels. The fact that higher surrounding groundwater levels do 

not cause the lake to rise in the winter is evidence of this. 

Soils with low hydraulic conductivity cause groundwater to move very slowly through the Devils 

Lake basin. This slow-moving water in contact with the glacial drift in the basin gradually 

becomes high in dissolved solids, particularly sulfate and chloride. Deeper aquifers such as the 

Spiritwood Aquifer have total dissolved solids levels comparable to those in Devils Lake itself. 

The water quality in the Spiritwood Aquifer does not correlate to its vicinity to the lake, though, 

and areas far from the lake may have higher total dissolved solids (TDS) than areas nearer the 

lake. This indicates that the groundwater quality is not determined by seepage from the lake. 

The effects of Devils Lake on groundwater quality in the Devils Lake basin would be expected to 

be limited to slow-moving percolation to very localized areas around Devils Lake itself. 

Inlet from Missouri River 

The purpose of an inlet from the Missouri River would be to help stabilize the lake during drier 

climatic conditions. Regionally, there is great interest in stabilizing lake levels to try to maintain 

the recreational and economic value of the lake. Other states (i.e., Minnesota and Missouri), 

Canada, and some agencies are concerned about water quality, water quantity, and biota transfer 

issues associated with an inlet. 

Many believe that an outlet is the first step toward an inlet and oppose the outlet for that reason 

or feel that the report should include a discussion of the effects of an inlet. 

Public Law 105-62 prohibited the Corps of Engineers from using any of the funds to study any 

inlet involving the transfer of water from the Missouri River basin. Therefore, an inlet is not 

viewed as a reasonably foreseeable action and it is not part of the analysis. 

Upper Basin Storage/Watershed Management 

Controversy about upper basin storage/watershed management appears to be primarily between 

lakeside communities that desire an outlet and downstream communities (including those on the 

overflow and outlet routes) that support increased upper basin storage/watershed management. 

However, landowners in the upper basin have also expressed concerns regarding this alternative. 

Specifically, they are concerned about the fairness of compensation for easements on their land 

and taking land out of agricultural production. Many agencies and groups also feel that upper 

basin storage/watershed management, closing drains, and placing a moratorium on future 

drainage is the main solution to the rising lake levels. Others feel that it would have little effect 

on the lake. Upper basin storage/watershed management is considered by many to be one of the 

legs of the “three-legged stool” solution to the problem, along with infrastructure protection and 

an outlet. Upper basin storage/watershed management was evaluated as an alternative as a part 

of this report. If upper basin storage/watershed management were pursued, additional studies 

would be needed to determine the most cost-effective and acceptable locations for storing water. 

S-14
Unresolved Issues 

Mitigation of Impacts 

Because of the inability to predict how the alternatives would actually be constructed and 

operated and the limited precision of modeling techniques, not all impacts and associated 

mitigation needs have been quantified. Various mitigation features have been identified to help 

ensure the recovery of the system after the outlet ceases operation. To address data gaps and the 

difficulty in predicting effects, monitoring of various resources during project operation has been 

identified as a mitigation feature. The results of monitoring would be used to modify the 

mitigation measures as needed during operation to appropriately address project impacts. The 

analysis in this report is based on currently available information. This information is considered 

adequate to address the decision to be made at this time, which is the identification of a preferred

alternative. 

Long-term monitoring of impacts is included, as well as agency coordination, to determine if 

additional mitigation measures are needed. A framework for the monitoring has been identified. 

This framework will be revised as necessary to ensure the objectives of monitoring are met. No 

costs are included for agency participation in the long-term monitoring, interpretation of the 

long-term monitoring data, or implementation of any additional mitigation features identified 

through the long-term monitoring. An interagency task force would have to be established to 

manage and coordinate the long-term monitoring program. Some mitigation measures would be 

implemented concurrently with construction, and ongoing studies and adaptive management are 

included. Monitoring will provide the data necessary to confirm the effect of operation on the 

system and will assist in determining any future mitigation needs. Costs for any future 

mitigation needs are not included and could be significant. Supplemental EIS documentation 

may be required in the future based on the results of the monitoring program.

Feasibility of Constructing an Outlet 

The selected outlet plan may be difficult to construct because of the inability to meet water 

quality goals and standards. The selected outlet plan is constrained by downstream channel 

capacity and water quality at the insertion point on the Sheyenne River, but would result in some

minor increased flooding and some water quality degradation to downstream areas. This 

document describes the effects of the alternatives. The framework for an outlet operation plan 

has been developed and is expected to be refined through coordination with an outlet operation 

committee composed of local, State, and Federal interests to further minimize water quality and 

other downstream impacts. The Corps may prepare additional NEPA documentation through a 

tiered process. 

Water Quality Considerations 

The economic analysis and conclusions reached in the study are based on the present operating 

plan. The present operating plan does not meet all downstream water quality standards and 

objectives. Any revised operating plan that attempts to reduce water quality effects would likely

reduce the outlet’s effectiveness in reducing lake levels. Without treatment of the discharge 

water (which was deemed cost prohibitive), it is not possible to design an effective outlet that 

will assure attainment of all downstream water quality standards. Any permits needed for 

compliance with water quality criteria would need to be obtained prior to construction or 

S-15
operation. The Corps has applied to the North Dakota Department of Health for Section 401 

water quality certification in accordance with the Clean Water Act. The local sponsor, North 

Dakota, has applied for a Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, permit 

for the operation of an outlet. 

Lack of Tribal Resource Information 

Information on tribal resources and traditional cultural properties has been sought. Information 

currently is not available for all resources. A draft Programmatic Agreement identifying needs 

and agency responsibilities has been prepared for the Devils Lake Project and is provided in 

Appendix 6. Although the Programmatic Agreement has not been signed by all parties at this 

time, if necessary, the Corps intends to request formal comments from the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation in order to comply with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Transboundary and Boundary Waters Treaty Effects 

Water quality effects have been identified at the Canadian border. Effects in Canada have not 

been fully analyzed. Canada opposes the outlet, both as a violation of the Boundary Waters 

Treaty (BWT) and as environmentally unacceptable to Canadian interests. Pursuant to Public 

Law 108-7 and before the project is implemented, the U.S. State Department will need to provide 

assurances that the project will not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Section 207 of 

Public Law 107-206 authorized the Corps to provide funds to the United States Section of the 

International Joint Commission (IJC) for the purpose of conducting investigations, undertaking 

studies and preparing reports in connection with a Reference to the IJC under Article IX of the 

BWT for an emergency outlet for Devils Lake, North Dakota. Pursuant to that authority, the 

Corps transferred funds in the amount of $500,000 to the IJC’s U.S. Section on 26 September 

2002. 

Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented on the draft report that the 404(b)(1) 

evaluation is too narrow in scope and should consider the effects associated with the operation of 

an outlet in determining compliance of the proposed action with the Section 404(b)(1) 

Guidelines. EPA feels that the effects associated with outlet operation are secondary impacts 

that should be fully discussed in the evaluation and considered in determining compliance. 

The Corps believes that environmental effects associated with outlet operation should be and are 

fully discussed in the EIS. The proper interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 230.11(h)(1) is that the Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines do not require operational impacts of the outlet plan to be considered as 

part of the 404(b)(1) analysis itself. 40 C.F.R. 230.11(h)(1) provides, in part, that “Information 

about secondary effects on aquatic ecosystems shall be considered prior to the time final Section 

404 action is taken by the permitting authorities.” (emphasis added) The EIS considers 

operational impacts, and this consideration is prior to the time final Section 404 action will be 

taken. 40 C.F.R. 230.11(h) contains the only references to evaluation of secondary impacts in 

the guidelines and it imposes no requirement to evaluate those effects as part of the 404(b)(1) 

analysis, but specifically provides that such analysis may be done (at any time) “prior to the time

final Section 404 action is taken.” Therefore, the EIS, as written, is fully compliant with the 

requirement to consider secondary effects on aquatic ecosystems of the outlet discharge. The 

S-16
Corps and Army decision-makers for the outlet proposal will fully consider the information on 

secondary environmental effects of outlet operation before taking action under Clean Water Act 

(CWA) Section 404 to authorize any discharges of dredged or fill material associated with 

proposed construction of the outlet. 

Nevertheless, the Corps’ evaluation of operational impacts of an outlet (see Chapter 6) leads us

to conclude that, even when those operational impacts are included within the 404(b)(1) analysis 

itself, the outlet project, and all proposed discharges of dredged or fill material associated with 

its construction, will comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. The issue of compliance with water 

quality standards promulgated by the State of North Dakota is a matter that properly lies with the

State of North Dakota. The State of North Dakota, while not having made a final permit 

decision, has suggested that the project (including operation) will meet applicable State water 

quality standards. If the State of Minnesota in the future were to raise objections regarding 

possible effects of the outlet’s operation on downstream water quality in Minnesota, that matter 

would likely be addressed by the EPA and the affected states pursuant to the provisions of CWA 

Section 401(a)(2) and corresponding regulations. With respect to impacts due to water quantity 

to be discharged by the outlet during its operation, mitigation proposed in the EIS (see Chapters 

5 and 6) will alleviate any adverse impacts. 

Appropriateness of Tiering 

The EPA commented on the draft report that the Corps’ use of tiering to identify and quantify 

mitigation needs is inappropriate. The EPA believes that reasonably foreseeable water quality 

and other impacts of the outlet alternatives are essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives 

and must be included in the EIS. 

The Corps agrees with the general concepts put forth by the EPA. However, the key is in 

determining what are “reasonably foreseeable” impacts. While the potential changes in water 

quality on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers have been modeled, only limited baseline and modeling 

efforts have been possible for many resource categories. While investigations to date have 

allowed for the identification of the types and approximate magnitude of impacts, they have also 

indicated that it would be unreasonable to assume that the specific effects of an outlet can be 

sufficiently quantified at this time. The collection of additional baseline information and 

mitigation measures have been included as part of an outlet plan. Because of the high degree of 

uncertainty associated with the specific occurrence/timing/magnitude of potential impacts, the 

Corps recommends an adaptive approach to further quantify/mitigate impacts, based on the 

approach of developing management indicators as recommended by the EPA. 

As a result of the comments received to the draft IPR/EIS, the Corps has added additional 

mitigation features to address anticipated impacts. These added features on the Sheyenne River 

include aquatic habitat preservation through the creation of cutoffs across meanders and 

additional erosion protection at critical locations. Also, a sand filtration system has been added 

on the outlet to address biota transfer and filter much of the organic material from the water 

before it enters the Sheyenne River. These added features have been coordinated with both the 

regional and national offices of the EPA. 

S-17
Based on the addition of mitigation features and the uncertainty associated with the specific 

occurrence/timing/magnitude of potential impacts, the Corps does not concur that tiering is 

inappropriately applied in this case. CEQ guidelines (40 C.F.R. Section 1508.28 (b)) allow for 

tiering when the sequence of statements or analysis is “From an environmental impact statement 

on a specific action at an early stage...to a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such 

as a more detailed operating plan and detailed design of the Dry Lake feature).” The current EIS 

identifies the potential environmental risks and costs associated with the proposed alternatives 

for the public and decision-makers, fully discloses issues of concern and data deficiencies, and 

outlines what needs to be done prior to operation to ensure that potential impacts are adequately 

addressed during the operation of the project. The Corps has determined that tiering is 

appropriate under the circumstances because it allows for a timely decision as to whether or not 

the construction of an outlet should proceed. 

Determination of Refuge Compatibility 

Some of the Pelican Lake features could affect the Lake Alice Refuge and other lands along the 

outlet route that are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has identified that, in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, a 

compatibility statement will be required for some of the Pelican Lake features. A compatibility 

determination cannot be provided at this stage of the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

will make a determination of compatibility when more detailed design/operation information is 

available for the Dry Lake feature. The intent of any proposed action would be to avoid actions 

that are not compatible with the operation of any Service administered lands. If this activity is 

found to be incompatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, then an 

alternate alignment that does not involve refuge property will be explored and any required 

supplemental NEPA analysis will be performed. 

RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTES AND OTHER 

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

This Final Integrated Planning Report and EIS is prepared in compliance with Federal 

environmental laws, executive orders and policies, and State and local laws and policies, 

including the Clean Air Act, as amended; the Clean Water Act of 1977; the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, as amended; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended; the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order 13112, 

Invasive Species; Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice; and Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management. 

S-18
DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA 

FINAL INTEGRATED PLANNING REPORT 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

Since 1993, Devils Lake has risen more than 25 feet, flooding homes, roads, farmlands, utilities, 

and railways, and threatening several communities. During this period, the lake has expanded 

from 70 square miles to over 200 square miles. The shoreline has expanded landward 1 to 10 

miles. Devils Lake is now higher than at any time since the 1830's. In response to this situation, 

more than $350 million in Federal emergency response funding has been spent relocating people, 

raising roads, and building levees to combat the flooding. In early March 2003, Devils Lake was 

at an elevation of about 1446.9 feet above mean sea level (msl). The highest stage in recorded 

history was reached in July 2001, at elevation 1448.33 msl. At elevation 1446.6 msl, water 

began flowing into Stump Lake, a smaller lake located just to the east, and could eventually 

inundate a National Wildlife Refuge. If Devils Lake rises to elevation 1459 msl, areas 

downstream of Devils Lake (extending into Canada) will be threatened as well, including the 

Sheyenne River and the Red River of the North - which flow into Manitoba. An east-end 

overflow into these rivers may threaten water quality conditions because Devils Lake contains

high concentrations of solids including chlorides and sulfates. It is estimated that an additional 

$900 million in potential damages would occur if levels continue to rise to a point of overflowing 

into the Sheyenne River. 

The primary purpose of this Integrated Report, in accordance with the authorizing legislation, is 

to evaluate the results of studies to address flooding problems associated with the rising levels of 

Devils Lake in North Dakota and relevant consequences of implementing various alternatives. 

I-1
1 AUTHORITIES 

PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION 

In the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from Natural Disasters, 

and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (Public Law 105-18), 

Congress provided funds for the Corps of Engineers to undertake preconstruction engineering 

and design (PED) and the associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an emergency 

outlet from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River. Additional funds for this work were provided in 

subsequent laws, including the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 

106-246). 

In accordance with these laws, the Corps designed a selected outlet plan (Pelican Lake 300 cfs 

outlet plan) as this report was being prepared and coordinated. The Corps’ preconstruction 

engineering and design efforts did not preclude the selection of an alternative other than the 

selected outlet plan. As a part of the ongoing PED and associated EIS effort, the Corps 

conducted the necessary evaluations in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). These evaluations will also provide data related to requirements of the Boundary 

Waters Treaty of 1909. 

CONSTRUCTION FUNDING – EMERGENCY OUTLET 

In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003, Division D of Public Law 108-

7, Congress authorized and directed the following: 

 

“That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and 

directed to use $5,000,000 of Construction, General funding as provided herein for construction 

of an emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne River, at an estimated 

total cost of $100,000,000, which shall be cost-shared in accordance with section 103 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213), except that the funds 

shall not become available unless the Secretary of the Army determines that an emergency (as 

defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

(42 U.S.C. 5122)) exists with respect to the emergency need for the outlet and reports to 

Congress that the construction is technically sound and environmentally acceptable, and in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.): 

Provided further, That the justification for the emergency outlet shall be fully described, 

including the analysis of the benefits and costs, in the project plan documents: Provided further, 

That the plans for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed and, to be effective, shall contain 

assurances provided by the Secretary of State, that the project will not violate the Treaty 

Between the United States and Great Britain Relating to Boundary Waters Between the United 

States and Canada, signed at Washington January 11, 1909 (36 Stat. 2448; TS 548) (commonly 

know as the “Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909”): Provided further, That the Secretary of the 

Army shall submit the final plans and other documents for the emergency outlet to Congress: 

Provided further, That no funds made available under this Act or any other Act for any fiscal 

1-1
year may be used by the Secretary of the Army to carry out the portion of the feasibility study of

the Devils Lake Basin, North Dakota, authorized under the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-377), that addresses the needs of the area for 

stabilized lake levels through inlet controls, or to otherwise study any facility or carry out any 

activity that would permit the transfer of water from the Missouri River Basin into Devils Lake.” 

Public Law 108-7 directs the Corps to construct an outlet from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne 

River, subject to several conditions, including the Secretary of State providing assurances that 

the project will not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Additionally, it differs from the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-377, and earlier laws 

by no longer that the outlet be economically justified. Rather, Public Law 108-7 requires instead 

that the justification for the outlet by fully described, including the analysis of the benefits and 

costs. 

1-2
2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

The Purpose and Need Statement has been defined in the NEPA Notice of Intent as follows: 

“The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the flood damages related to the rising lake 

levels in the flood-prone areas around Devils Lake and to reduce the potential for a natural 

overflow event.” Specific objectives supporting this purpose and need statement include the 

following: 

1) Minimize further flood damages around Devils Lake. 

2) Minimize the potential of uncontrolled flows into the Sheyenne River. 

3) Be flexible to operate over a range of Devils Lake inflows and channel capacity and 

water quality conditions downstream in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. 

4) Be flexible to deal with increased flood risks associated with elevated lake levels. 

5) Avoid to the maximum extent possible, or mitigate, adverse impacts. 

2-1