Planning Constraints 

Cost-effectiveness: For each alternative, the analysis of costs and benefits 

allowed the computation of the alternative’s net benefits and benefit-cost ratio (BCR). 

Both the costs and the benefits of the alternatives depend on estimated future lake levels 

and also on the water quality and water quantity of any outflow from Devils Lake to the 

Sheyenne River. For every alternative, therefore, the costs and benefits were calculated 

using two sets of long-term projections—one set of projections regarding the lake levels, 

and another regarding the water quantity and quality of flows discharging to the 

Sheyenne River. 

In general terms, the steps of the Economic Analysis were as follows: 

1. A computer model simulating the hydrology of the Devils Lake basin provided the 

first set of projections. These 50-year lake level projections resulted from computergenerated patterns of climate fluctuations. The climate fluctuations, along with input 

parameters related to the specifics of the alternative under consideration, allowed the 

model to produce 10,000 stochastically generated 50-year “traces” of projected lake 

levels. Note that for each 50-year with-project trace, it was necessary to produce a 

companion without-project trace to allow calculation of project costs and benefits. 

2. A second water and chemical mass-balance model was developed to generate future 

volumes and water quality concentrations in Devils Lake and Stump Lake using the 

climatic inputs of the first model. 

3. A third model was developed as an outlet simulation model for generating daily outlet 

discharges and sulfate concentrations to meet downstream water quality and water 

quantity constraints in the Sheyenne River. 

4. A fourth computer model was used to give the projections regarding the downstream

river water quality and quantity. This fourth model used the lake level trace output 

from the third model as input, along with climate projections and hydrologic 

information for the downstream rivers. In this way, normal river flows could be 

combined with any Devils Lake outflows to predict water quality constituent 

concentrations and flow rates over the same 50-year span. Again, for each withproject trace, a companion without-project trace was generated to allow calculation of 

project costs and benefits. 

5. A fifth computer program used the lake levels and river water quality and quantity 

parameters to calculate the costs and damages for each of the features around Devils 

Lake and for each of those features downstream of the lake that could be affected by 

outflow from the lake. For each feature, costs and damages were summed for both 

the with-project and the without-project condition. An alternative’s benefits could be 

calculated by subtracting the with-project summation of all of a feature’s costs and 

damages from the without-project summation of all of the same feature’s costs and 

damages. The project costs compared to these benefits provides the expected net 

benefits and BCR for the alternative. 

6. Finally, further analysis of the alternative was desired to determine the economic 

indices’ sensitivity to variations in the assumptions made regarding the alternative. 

For each alternative, therefore, additional sets of benefits and costs were computed. 

5-20
Each additional set was computed after making adjustments to one or more of the 

following: 

• Assumptions regarding the future climatic conditions. 

• Assumptions regarding the simultaneous infrastructure protection measures that 

would be undertaken with or without the project. 

• Assumptions that infrastructure protection measures would be undertaken without 

the project. 

• Assumptions regarding the way in which the natural outlet would erode if the 

Devils Lake/Stump Lake system overflowed. (Altering these erosion assumptions 

changes the flow rate of water spilling from the lake.) 

Appendix B further documents the methods, assumptions, and results of the benefit-cost 

analysis. In Public Law 108-7, the Congress removed the traditional requirements 

regarding economic justification and provided instead that the justification of the 

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

Water Quality Standards: The State of North Dakota has classified the 

Sheyenne River as a class 1A stream and the Red River as a class 1 stream, which 

establishes its designated use as suitable for aquatic life, boating and swimming, and 

municipal water supply use subject to treatment by softening to meet chemical drinking 

water requirements. The sulfate standard for class 1A streams is 450 mg/l. North Dakota 

has not established Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) standards for class 1 or 1A streams. 

North Dakota has also established an antidegradation implementation procedure that calls 

for a review process whenever a new or expanded source of pollutants would cause a 

significant permanent effect on the quality and beneficial uses of the affected waters. 

A determination of “significant effect” would occur if the ambient quality of any 

parameter were degraded by more than 15 percent, or the available assimilative capacity 

were reduced by more than 15 percent, or any pollutant load were to be increased by 

15 percent. 

The State of Minnesota’s water quality rules have established 250 mg/l sulfate and 

500 mg/l TDS as standards for the Red River of the North. Other standards apply but are 

likely to be met whenever the TDS standard is met. Minnesota also has an 

antidegradation policy that affords protection of designated uses based on non-numeric 

criteria. 

Pursuant to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, the International Joint Commission has 

established a set of water quality objectives (not standards) for the purpose of protecting 

the Red River of the North entering Canada. The numeric objectives are the same as 

Minnesota’s numeric standards. 

Downstream Channel Capacity: The nominal channel capacity for the upper 

reaches of the Sheyenne River has been established at 600 cfs. There are some areas of 

overbank flooding even at 600 cfs, which are primarily floodplains adjacent to the river. 

There are no major roads affected at 600 cfs, but some trail crossings during low flows 

5-21
would be affected. It is recognized that even a constrained operating plan that limits the 

total combined flow of the Sheyenne River and the Devils Lake outlet to 600 cfs at the 

insertion point would have impacts. Extra flows would tend to aggravate streambank 

erosion, increase groundwater stages, and cause flooding when localized storms increase 

Sheyenne River flows without an opportunity to reduce Devils Lake discharge amounts. 

These potential impacts have been studied and are addressed elsewhere in this report. 

ALTERNATIVE PLANS 

Initial Screening of Alternatives 

In recent years, the Corps of Engineers has performed numerous studies on Devils Lake, 

and many different outlet schemes have been considered in these studies. Information 

used for determining alternatives came primarily from the following five reports: 

• Devils Lake, North Dakota, Contingency Plan, 12 August 1996 

• Devils Lake, North Dakota, Emergency Outlet Plan, 12 August 1996 

• Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, Independent Assessment, Phase I, October 30, 

1997 

• Memorandum for Record dated 14 April 1999, Subject, “Devils Lake Emergency 

Outlet, Alternative Cost Comparisons” 

• Devils Lake Basin, North Dakota, Integrated Draft Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement, April 1988 

These studies and others have evaluated various configurations and alignments of outlet 

plans. One of the first steps of this formulation process was to determine the best plan 

for each of the alternatives to be included in the formulation. This screening process is 

described in Appendix D. Additionally, potential alternatives that have been suggested, 

but eliminated from further consideration prior to this formulation process, include water 

treatment and relocation of improvements from the flood zone around Devils Lake. 

The final cost estimates for the alternatives that will be carried forward for the detailed 

evaluation (pages 5-118 to 5-158) vary from the estimates used in the following 

alternative screening since the final cost estimates (and resulting Benefit-Cost Ratios) are 

developed with a greater level of detail. 

No Action

This alternative assumes that no action is taken to protect property and infrastructure 

around Devils Lake if the lake continues to rise. 

5-22
Most Likely Future Without Project

This alternative is a continuation of emergency flood protection measures that have been 

performed for infrastructure features around Devils Lake up to this time. The locations 

where flood damages might occur were analyzed at 24 separate features adjacent to the 

lake. They include communities, roads, rail lines, public facilities, and rural areas. As 

the most likely future, the other alternatives were compared to this future condition. This 

alternative was compared to the No Action alternative. 

Water Treatment 

Treatment of outlet water from Devils Lake has been briefly investigated in past reports. 

Treating lake water to reduce the total dissolved solids would allow much more water to 

be added to the Sheyenne River without exceeding water quality standards. Several 

technologies are being used today to desalinate water; all of them are very costly. Water 

treatment has been considered in earlier studies of the lake. Most recently the Army

Corps of Engineers’ Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) 

investigated the optional technologies available and provided their results in November 

2002. 

The treatment plant goals established for their analysis were 400 mg/l TDS, 100 mg/l 

SO4

-

, and 300-cfs maximum discharge. The plant would only be in operation for seven 

months of the year (01 May – 30 Nov) due to weather and temperature (ice) constraints. 

Water treatment technologies considered included membrane filtration, thermal, and 

chemical addition. These technologies are listed below. Ion exchange was not 

investigated in depth because regeneration and pH control would limit the range of 

TDS/sulfate levels that could be treated. 

Process Technology 

Microfiltration 

Nanofiltration 

Ultrafiltration 

Membrane 

Filtration 

Reverse Osmosis 

Thermal Distillation/Evaporation 

Freezing 

Chemical Coagulation 

Addition Chemical Precipitation 

The proposed conceptual design for a desalination plant for the Devils Lake Project 

would consist of two steps. The first step is treatment to remove all aquatic biota and 

suspended solids that could foul the reverse osmosis membrane. To ensure compliance 

with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, 100 percent of the project inflow rate (300 cfs) 

will be treated by microfiltration. Pretreatment to the microfiltration will utilize screens 

to remove debris. Following microfiltration, pretreatment will include the addition of 

acid and anti-scaling agents. The water will then be treated by reverse osmosis, followed 

5-23
by degasification, pH adjustments, and disinfection (if required) prior to discharge. 

Preliminary cost estimates for construction costs and annual operation costs are 

approximately $265 million and $27 million, respectively. The cost estimates confirm

the results of investigations performed earlier. 

Other sources list similarly high costs for desalinating water. On its Web page, the 

USGS indicates that costs for desalinization of seawater can range from $1,300 to $2,200 

per acre-foot (total costs). Desalinating 150 cfs for 7 months per year would result in an 

annual cost of $82 million to $140 million using the USGS estimates. World Bank 

estimates for desalinated water are $1.60 to $2.70 per cubic meter. These unit costs 

would result in a yearly cost of $124 million to $210 million at 150 cfs for 7 months. 

Optimistic planners for desalinating seawater in the Middle East hope to get costs as low 

as $0.50 per cubic meter. If this could be achieved in Devils Lake, it would still result in 

an annual cost of $39 million. A very large desalinization plant at Devils Lake would be 

expected to approach the lower end of estimated costs per volume of water treated. 

Energy costs would be extremely high. The absolute minimum energy required to 

recover 1,000 gallons of fresh water is 2.98 kilowatt-hours. 

There are other concerns with operating a large desalinization plant besides cost. One is 

finding a source for the large amount of power that would be required to run the plant. 

Another is finding a disposal location for the large quantities of sludge and brine that the 

plant would produce. This plan was dropped from the study due to both the high initial 

construction costs and also the high operational costs. 

Relocation 

Although there was not a formal evaluation of a relocation alternative for the entire 

Devils Lake basin, the value of buildings and infrastructure around Devils Lake was 

estimated in 1998 to be approximately $1 billion.1 Relocation of most features was 

considered in the current economic analysis. Costs for relocation of features is dependent 

on the structure type and location. Isolated residential structures and outbuildings can be 

relocated for somewhat less than the value of the structure. Relocation of large buildings 

and city infrastructure may result in relocation costs that are somewhat more than the 

value of the structure. However, costs on the whole would not vary greatly from the 

value of the building or infrastructure. The value of the buildings and infrastructure, 

$1 billion, can therefore be used as an estimated cost for complete relocation cost around 

Devils Lake. 

Outlet Plans

 

1 Technical Report “Benefits and Costs of Alternative Emergency Outlets for Devils Lake, North Dakota:

The North Dakota State Water Commission Temporary Emergency Outlet and the US Army Corps of 

Engineers Permanent Emergency Outlet.” Prepared by Hazard Mitigation Economics Inc., September 27, 

1999.

5-24
Many outlet studies have been conducted in the past, and these studies were used as a 

starting point to determine nine basic potential outlet alternatives. All of the proposed 

outlets discharge water from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River. A complete

description of the outlet alternatives for this initial screening, including the initial costs 

estimates, can be found in Volume II, Appendix D, “Initial Screening.” Following are 

brief descriptions of the outlet alternatives and the results of the screening process. Three 

of the nine basic outlet alternatives were carried forward for additional analysis. 

Three different basic outlets that draw water from the West Bay were considered: 

West Bay Alternative 1. Pump Along Twin Lakes Route from West Bay 

This alternative has been investigated extensively in the past because it is the shortest and 

lowest route for pumping water from the West Bay of Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River. 

The Corps of Engineers developed a preliminary design for this outlet in 1996. This 

alternative was dropped from this study for the same reason it was dropped in 1996, 

because it ran across tribal trust lands and was opposed by the Spirit Lake Nation. 

West Bay Alternative 2. Pump Along Peterson Coulee Route from West Bay 

This outlet from West Bay is a pipeline that begins south of Minnewaukan and runs over 

the divide and along Peterson Coulee to the Sheyenne River. It was substantially 

developed by the Corps of Engineers in 1998. This outlet alternative was carried forward

for more detailed analysis.

West Bay Alternative 3. Gravity Flow Pipelines from West Bay 

For this alternative, a gravity flow tunnel would be constructed from Devils Lake to the 

Sheyenne River. This plan was dropped because of the very high initial cost. 

Pelican Lake Alternative

One outlet alternative was considered that draws water from Pelican Lake. A channel 

would carry water to a pump station near Minnewaukan where it would be pumped into a 

pipeline that would run over the divide and along Peterson Coulee to the Sheyenne River. 

This plan has the potential to be able to pump more water from the lake than any other 

outlet plan while meeting downstream water quality targets. This outlet alternative was

carried forward for more detailed analysis.

Four outlets were considered that would draw water from East Devils Lake: 

East Devils Lake Alternative 1. Gravity Flow Along Tolna Coulee from East Devils 

Lake 

For this alternative, a channel would be dug from East Devils Lake to a daylight point in 

Tolna Coulee where water would naturally flow to the Sheyenne River. Drop structures 

5-25
would be needed to control erosion at the lower end of the channel. This alternative was 

dropped because of expected low effectiveness and because it would cost more than other 

East Devils Lake alternatives. 

East Devils Lake Alternative 2. Pump from East Devils Lake to Tolna Coulee 

This alternative is virtually the same as the previous alternative but incorporated a low 

head pump station to pump water up to a higher outlet channel to reduce the required 

excavation and therefore make the initial cost lower. It was dropped for the same reasons 

as the previous alternative. 

East Devils Lake Alternative 3. Gravity Flow Tunnel from East Devils Lake 

For this alternative, a gravity flow tunnel would be constructed from Devils Lake to the 

Sheyenne River. It was dropped from the study due to high initial costs and for the 

reasons stated in the previous East Devils Lake Alternatives. 

East Devils Lake Alternative 4. Gravity Flow Channel from East Devils Lake to Stump 

Lake Outlet 

For this alternative, the outlet from the east end of Devils Lake would be a grass-lined 

gravity flow channel that initially would follow the natural overflow channel between 

Devils Lake and Stump Lake. At Stump Lake, the channel would follow the west side of 

the lake until it reached the natural outlet from Stump Lake. From there it would 

continue along the natural Stump Lake outlet route until the channel invert intersected 

natural ground in Tolna Coulee. From there, Devils Lake water would flow down Tolna 

Coulee into the Sheyenne River. This outlet route does not cross the Spirit Lake 

Reservation. This alternative was carried forward for further analysis because it is the

least costly of the East Devils Lake alternatives.

West Stump Lake Alternative 

For this alternative, a channel would be constructed from West Stump Lake to a daylight 

point in Tolna Coulee. This alternative was dropped because of the very poor quality of 

the water in Stump Lake and because it requires Stump Lake to be filled before it is able 

to affect the level of Devils Lake, which also would impact the Stump Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Expanded Infrastructure Protection

There are several locations around Devils Lake in which roads are currently holding back 

water, providing barriers to the rising and expanding waters of Devils Lake. Since these 

roads are acting as dams, but are not constructed to function as dams, there is a potential 

safety hazard to road users and to the people living behind these barriers and using the 

areas which they shelter. This alternative examines the economic feasibility of taking 

additional measures to provide a safe level of flood protection behind these barriers. 

5-26
5-27
Upper Basin Storage

Basin water management has long been recognized as a viable and valuable component 

of Devils Lake flood control. The North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) 

considers it an integral element of the recommended overall flood control package along 

with infrastructure protection and an outlet. For example, this three-pronged approach is 

cited in the Devils Lake Basin Water Management Plan as a necessary and 

comprehensive approach to alleviate flooding in the basin. 

In the context of Devils Lake’s flooding, the goal of basin water management is to reduce 

the volume of runoff that reaches Devils Lake. The focus has been on upper basin 

storage; however, comprehensive basin water management encompasses a range of 

activities that can help retain water in the upper basin, including restoring wetlands, 

creating new holding ponds, eliminating illegal drains, and changing farming practices. 

Examples of the latter include conservation tillage to retain more moisture in the soil 

profile, converting cropland to grass or another permanent cover, and manipulating gates 

on field drains to control flows, especially in the spring, to allow additional water to 

percolate into the soil. Side benefits from such water management measures accrue to a 

multitude of interests – reducing sheet erosion, increasing crop production, improving 

water quality, increasing wildlife habitat, and reducing flooding. 

In looking at the implementability of basin water management measures to reduce Devils 

Lake flooding, it is important to recognize potential adverse impacts from these 

measures. For instance, farmers may readily agree to store water in a low spot that has 

been too wet to till for years. However, they are not likely to store water on previously 

dry land that would take pasture or crop acreage out of production on top of what has 

already been lost to flooding. The latter has an added negative impact on other elements 

of the local, agriculture-based economy. Also, landowners note that percolation from

retention sites raises the water table, which often brings salts to the surface in the vicinity 

of the storage site, adversely affecting future crop production. Water storage may also 

limit access to other fields, increase input or costs, lead to additional depredation, and 

increase weed problems. Such problems, real or perceived, make the acceptance of such 

measures on a voluntary and even a compensated basis difficult for the landowner. 

Currently, there are numerous Federal, State, and Local programs focused on basin water 

management. Many of these programs are documented in more detail in Appendix A. The 

most significant of these programs have been the NDSWC Available Storage Acreage 

Program (ASAP), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service storage programs, the ND Natural 

Resource Wetlands Trust (NDNRT) program, and the Farm Service Agency Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP). No detailed study has been done to estimate the direct effect on 

Devils Lake levels that these programs may have collectively; however, on the basis of the 

studies done, a reasonable estimate would be 35,000 acre-feet, which is nearly 4 inches at 

current lake levels. Because of the large volume of water in Devils Lake and the lake’s 

large surface area, significant upper basin storage or land use conversion that would 

eventually reduce runoff would be needed to have an impact on lake levels. 

5-28
In addition to these formal programs, there is substantial, unquantified storage from

existing wetlands, changed tillage practices, and land inundated during the current wet 

cycle. The Farm Services Agency estimates that over 300,000 acres of farmland in the 

Devils Lake basin has been rendered unproductive due to wet conditions since 1992. This 

figure is corroborated by satellite imagery covering about 3,000 square miles (79 percent) 

of the Devils Lake Basin. On the basis of imagery taken on 17 August 1992, prior to the 

recent lake rise, the lake itself was about 44,000 acres in size and the area covered by water 

in the upper basin was nearly 43,000 acres. Imagery taken on 14 July 1997 showed the 

lake had doubled in size to over 88,000 acres, and the area covered by water in the upper 

basin had more than tripled to about 152,000 acres. 

While some have proposed changes in land use or cropland practices as a measure to help 

reduce runoff volume to Devils Lake, there has been speculation that the recent rise in 

Devils Lake levels may be due to changes in farm practices or management in the upper 

basin. To assess the land use and cropland that exists in the watershed, the Corps queried 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for the basin. There does not appear 

to be a correlation between changes in farm practice in the basin and the recent rise in 

Devils Lake levels. However, there has been some decrease in cropland due to 

inundation. Outside of typical crop rotation, there appears to be no significant change in 

crop patterns, except for the increase in CRP land in the basin. 

The conversion of cropland to CRP cover can significantly increase infiltration from

rainfall events. The cover also has the ability to trap and hold snow, which provides 

benefits to runoff reduction from snowmelt runoff. This change would reduce runoff to 

Devils Lake, although not significantly since only 8 percent of the contributing area to 

Devils Lake is in CRP. 

One basin water management measure proposed is a change in farming practice. 

Cropland in the basin currently comprises approximately 1,100,000 acres. If all this land 

were converted to CRP (as a best-case scenario), the estimated reduction in average 

annual runoff is 63,000 acre-feet (assuming a 0.69-inch reduction per acre from

Appendix A). The impact on the stage of Devils Lake, assuming this best-case scenario 

and a direct response on the lake, would be a reduction in stage of 0.5 foot at current lake 

levels. 

Irrigation is another basin water management measure that could be used to attenuate the 

rise of Devils Lake levels. Drawing water directly from the lake, or from upper basin 

storage areas that would eventually drain into the lake, would have potentially dual 

benefits – reduced damages at the lake and increased agricultural production within the 

basin. A concern about the viability of this alternative is that when irrigation is needed, 

the lake or storage areas may be in recession. Conversely, when Devils Lake is high, the 

basin is likely to be saturated with standing water in prairie potholes and irrigation would 

not be needed or feasible. Another concern is the suitability of soils and water for 

irrigation. Some soils should not be irrigated, and conditional soils should be irrigated 

under a high level of management, otherwise permanent damage to the soil could result. 

Source water high in salinity could also potentially damage the soil. 

5-29
Reducing runoff excess by only 1 inch from the land in the basin would have a 

significant effect on Devils Lake levels if it were basin wide. Although this measure may 

seem to be small, this option may not be implementable or feasible. There is 

approximately 1,700 square miles of cropland in the basin. If an incentive of only $20 

per acre were proposed through a farm policy program, the cost would be $20 million per 

year. Although irrigation may have some benefit, it may be limited because the land may 

already be saturated. A prudent approach to more thoroughly examine the effectiveness 

of irrigation would be a small test project in the upper basin. This coincides with the 

direction being pursued by the Devils Lake Basin Joint Water Resource Board, as 

recommended in an August 2002 report entitled “ Reconnaissance Level Investigation”. 

Upper basin water management is discussed in more detail in Appendix A.

Intermediate Array of Alternatives 

Alternatives developed and evaluated are described in this section. Costs for most of the 

alternatives are shown in Table 5-3. Costs for the other alternatives are listed with the 

description of the alternative. Figure 5-4 shows the Devils Lake Basin and the general 

location of features that are described. Outlet alternatives from the West Bay of Devils 

Lake are shown in more detail on Figure 5-5. 

No Action

This alternative, which is also referred to as the Infrastructure Protection Plan, assumes 

that no action will be taken to protect property and infrastructure around Devils Lake if 

the lake continues to rise. This was used as the future condition to be compared to the 

Most Likely Future Without Project. 

Most Likely Future Without Project 

This alternative is a continuation of emergency flood protection measures that have been 

performed for infrastructure features around Devils Lake up to this time, and was used as 

the base condition that other alternatives were compared to. It was also compared to the 

No Action alternative. To evaluate future flood protection measures in the Devils Lake 

area, it was first necessary to develop a list of features for which flood protection efforts 

were likely. Developing the list required judgment as to which structure and 

infrastructure components might be grouped under a single feature. It also required an 

evaluation of the likely damages to the various roads, railroads, and other entities in the 

Devils Lake area. Discussions with local, state, and federal officials provided essential 

information regarding which features were most critical, which could reasonably be 

protected, and which were more likely to be abandoned should the water continue rising. 

For this study, 24 significant independent features were selected based on the threats from

flooding and the potential for protection. The features were grouped into five types: 

communities and cities, certain state facilities, rural areas, roads, and rail lines. Figure 5-3 

5-30
shows the location of all 24 features. The table following Figure 5-3 lists the features and 

shows how they are grouped by type for the analysis. 

 

Dependencies and Attributes of Features 

The individual features were generally evaluated independently in the feature analysis. 

For instance, communities were evaluated independently from the roads that provide 

access to the communities. The following section describes the physical dependencies of 

the features, emergency actions taken to date, and attributes of the features. 

Communities and Cities: Of the 24 selected independent features, five were 

communities or cities: Churchs Ferry, Devils Lake, Fort Totten, Minnewaukan, and 

St. Michael. Each of these is home to local residents, and each has significant economic 

importance because of the relative density of infrastructure in this predominantly rural 

area of North Dakota. It was determined that all infrastructure (such as wastewater 

treatment facilities, schools, grain elevators, hospitals, schools, and airports) within the 

communities was dependent on the flood protection provided for the community. 

Therefore, such infrastructure was not treated separately; local infrastructure was 

considered simply as a part of the community or city feature. 

State Facilities: Two of the selected features are state-owned facilities: Gilbert C. 

Grafton Military Reservation and Grahams Island State Park. The operation of the 

military base has a significant local economic impact. Rising lake levels were 

determined to have potential for substantial adverse impact on the access and use of the 

facility. A substantial amount of land used for military maneuvers at the base has been 

inundated in recent years. The base has also been forced to pump water from the west 

side of ND Highway 20 (just south of the City of Devils Lake levee) to protect several 

training areas. 

Grahams Island State Park is a major tourist attraction in the Devils Lake area. Park staff

estimate that a total of 73,770 visitors used the park during 1999. Access to the park is 

affected by rising lake levels; the park was closed in 1997 when the access road was 

under water. During 1997, approximately $2.2 million was invested in raising the access 

road to the park. 

Rural Areas: The rural areas adjacent to the lake, including farmsteads and farmland, 

residences, small towns, and small parks, were combined into this feature. Although the 

cost of individual infrastructure and land in these rural areas is not high, the total impact 

of rising lake levels on rural areas is significant. Because Stump Lake water levels could 

be significantly lower than those of Devils Lake, the rural areas around Stump Lake were 

treated separately from those adjacent to Devils Lake. 

5-31
Figure 5-3: Features Adjacent to Devils Lake 

5-32
List of Features Selected 

Communities and Cities: (includes wastewater treatment facilities, hospitals, and 

schools) 

1. Churchs Ferry 

2. City of Devils Lake 

3. Fort Totten 

4. City of Minnewaukan 

5. St. Michael 

State Facilities: 

6. Gilbert C. Grafton State Military Reservation 

7. Grahams Island State Park 

Rural Areas: 

8.1 Devils Lake Rural Areas 

8.2 Stump Lake Rural Areas 

Rail Lines: 

9. Red River Valley and Western Railroad: Minnewaukan South (note: this rail line 

 has been abandoned) 

10. Canadian Pacific Railroad: City of Devils Lake to Harlowe 

11. Burlington Northern Railroad: Along US Highway 2 

12. Burlington Northern Railroad: Churchs Ferry to Cando 

Roads: 

13. US Highway 2 

14. Highway 57 between Highway 20 and BIA 1 

15. Highway 57 between BIA 1 and Highway 281 

16. Highway 281 South of US Highway 2 

17. Highway 281 North of US Highway 2 

18. Highway 19 from the City of Devils Lake Levee to Highway 281 

19. Highway 1 

20. Highway 20 North of the City of Devils Lake 

21. Highway 20 from the City of Devils Lake Levee to Highway 57 

22. Highway 20 between Highway 57 and Tokio 

23. BIA 1 between Highway 57 and BIA 6 

24. BIA 6 between Highway 20 and Fort Totten 

For more detail on these features, please refer to Devils Lake Infrastructure Protection 

Study, January 2003, by Barr Engineering. 

5-33
Rail Lines: Four rail lines in the area were initially selected as independent features 

because they would be affected by the rising lake levels. However, the Red River Valley 

and Western spur line to Minnewaukan was subsequently closed so that further analysis 

was not necessary. The Burlington Northern line that runs parallel to US Highway 2 is a 

major artery in the Upper Midwest’s railroad system. Trains using this rail line have 

routes that connect New York to the state of Washington. Many local communities 

outside of the study area are also dependent on this rail line, although the communities 

themselves are on high ground. The other two rail lines that were selected as features are 

spur lines whose main function is to provide service to local grain elevators, and to 

deliver fertilizer to the area. Because of flood damage, the Canadian Pacific Railroad 

line from the City of Devils Lake to Harlowe was closed in 1998. 

Roads: There were 12 sections of roads that were selected as independent features. The 

selection of road sections was based on the results of a recent study1 of transportation 

patterns in the region. Roads were typically selected if they had average daily traffic 

counts (ADTs) greater than 1,000 prior to the recent increases in lake level. The roads 

included as independent features are described below. 

A. US Highway 2 is an important regional transportation route. Both interstate travel 

and local communities outside of the study area would be adversely affected by the 

closing of this road. The low portions of US Highway 2 are currently protected by the 

City of Devils Lake levee. 

B. Two other roads that are heavily used for east-west travel in the area are ND 

Highway 57 and ND Highway 19. The lowest portions of both of these roads have been 

raised in recent years to maintain east-west travel. 

C. There are three major highways used for north-south travel in the area: US 

Highway 281, ND Highway 20, and ND Highway 1. The lowest portions of Highway 

281 and ND Highway 20 have been raised in recent years to ensure uninterrupted northsouth travel. ND Highway 1, located near Stump Lake, had been threatened by the rising 

water of Stump Lake until it was realigned in 2001. 

D. Two roads on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation had average daily traffic counts 

greater than 1,000: BIA Highway 1 and BIA Highway 6. The lowest portions of both of 

these roads have been raised in recent years to maintain travel in the area. 

E. Three of the highways (ND Highway 57, US Highway 281, and ND Highway 20) 

were subdivided into multiple sections, and each section was treated as a separate feature. 

Considering the sections individually allows economic modeling to account for different 

traffic patterns, different potential reroute paths, and different lake elevations at which 

each of the road sections would be affected by flooding. 

 

1 Devils Lake Flood Control, Economics Database Update: Transportation Report, Barr Engineering 

Company, January 1998. 

5-34
Adjacent Lake Features Not Independently Analyzed 

Several facilities or infrastructure that were not analyzed as independent features are 

discussed below: 

A. Community of Penn: The community is at about elevation 1460 and would become

isolated by the lake at approximately lake level 1457. It is located adjacent to US 

Highway 2 and is dependent on it for access at high lake levels. The population of the 

community is estimated to be just under 150 and was included in Feature 8.1: Devils 

Lake Rural Areas. 

B. Spirit Lake Casino: The casino is above elevation 1463, so it would not be damaged 

directly by the rising lake. 

C. Other Parks and Recreation Areas: Other parks and recreation areas in the region, 

including Shelver’s Grove, Black Tiger Bay, and Settler’s Park, were included in 

Feature 8.1: Devils Lake Rural Areas and Feature 8.2: Stump Lake Rural Areas. These 

facilities are similar to Feature 7: Grahams Island State Park, in that the infrastructure 

would likely be relocated. 

D. Water Supply Systems: The City of Devils Lake wells are located on high ground 

south of Tokio and the Ramsey County Rural Utility wells are located on high ground 

south of Tolna. The community water treatment facilities would be affected with the 

respective community and were included in the respective feature. 

E. Power and Utilities: Power and utility lines throughout the area were analyzed with 

Feature 8.1: Devils Lake Rural Areas and Feature 8.2: Stump Lake Rural Areas. 

F. Wastewater Treatment Plants: Wastewater treatment plants would be affected with 

the respective community and were included in the respective feature. 

G. Hospitals and Schools: Hospitals and schools would be affected with the respective 

community and were included in the respective feature. 

H. Devils Lake Municipal Airport: The Devils Lake Municipal Airport is currently 

protected by the City of Devils Lake levee. The airport would be affected with the city 

and was, therefore, included in Feature 2: City of Devils Lake. 

I. Woods-Rutten Road: Prior to the rising lake level, this road had an average daily 

traffic (ADT) count of less than 200, well below the ADT criterion of 1,000 to qualify as 

a feature. The recent transportation study indicated that this road was not a primary 

route. Also, at higher lake levels, this road would require a significant raise to remain 

open. Therefore, this road was not included in the study. 

J. Ramsey County 4: Prior to recent high lake levels, this road had an average daily 

traffic (ADT) count of less than 200, well below the ADT criterion of 1,000 to qualify as 

5-35
a feature. The recent transportation study shows results similar to Woods-Rutten Road. 

Ramsey County 4 is higher than Woods-Rutten Road, and was analyzed as a reroute for 

Highways 20 and 57. However, it would also require a significant raise to remain open at 

high lake levels. 

K. BIA 4 and BIA 5: These BIA roads were raised in recent years to remain open to 

local traffic and have been used as reroutes for other closed roads in the area. However, 

the ADT on these roads prior to the flooding was about 200, well below the ADT 

criterion of 1,000 to qualify as a feature. Furthermore, the recent transportation study 

indicated that these roads were not primary routes. Therefore, they were not included in 

the study. 

Selection of Flood Protection Strategies 

To analyze the economic feasibility of each project, the features were combined using the 

set of Most Likely Action Flood Protection Strategies. The most likely action for each 

feature assumes that the types of emergency measures currently being pursued in the 

basin would continue to be implemented as necessary as the lake continues to rise. This 

set of most likely action strategies was assumed to be the baseline condition for this 

study, meeting the National Economic Development (NED) criteria as “the most likely 

condition expected to exist in the future in the absence of a proposed water resources 

project.” These emergency measures include such actions as raising the levees protecting 

the City of Devils Lake and relocating homes if the lake level continues to rise. For 

example, if a road has been raised in recent years, it is likely that it will continue to be 

raised. 

Decision Trees: The strategies for each feature can be graphically represented as 

“decision trees” showing decisions that would be made and actions that would be taken at 

various critical elevations. A decision tree was developed for each feature. The decision 

trees indicated the lake elevations at which decisions and actions would be required, and 

showed the options that were analyzed at those levels. 

Action Levels: The lake level at which a decision must be made is called an action level. 

For the Economic Analysis, action levels were assumed to occur 1 foot below the “design 

level of protection” in order to provide lead time for construction of protection measures 

before damages would occur. The design level of protection was defined separately for 

each feature and for each of the various flood protection measures. 

The flood protection strategies that were analyzed for the various feature types are 

described below. 

Communities and Cities: The most likely action strategies for communities and cities is 

typically incremental protection in the form of levee raises or relocation of structures. 

For Devils Lake and Minnewaukan, the most likely action is incremental levee raises. 

For Churchs Ferry, Fort Totten, and St. Michael, the most likely future is incremental 

relocations. 

5-36
State Facilities: The most likely action strategies for state facilities would be 

incremental protection. The most likely flood protection strategy for Grahams Island 

State Park was raising the park’s access road and relocating any low structures in a series 

of increments. A levee was not considered feasible for the facility because of the 

relatively low value of infrastructure there. 

The majority of infrastructure at the Gilbert C. Grafton State Military Reservation facility 

is located above elevation 1463. The incremental strategy assumed for this facility was 

access road raises, construction of a levee to protect the munitions storage area, and 

construction of a ring dike to protect structures in a series of increments. 

Rural Areas: For the rural areas, the only viable strategy was relocation of the structures 

to high ground and the loss of the value of inundated property. The infrastructure in 

these areas is scattered and could not be effectively protected because of the relatively 

high costs and the lack of access during high lake levels. 

Rail Lines: The most likely action strategy for rail lines is typically incremental 

protection, involving railroad raises in a series of incremental steps. The Red River 

Valley and Western Railroad has been abandoned. 

Roads: The most likely action strategies for roads is typically incremental protection, 

involving a series of road raises. The maximum protection strategy for roads could be 

either raising the road to elevation 1468 or rerouting the road along a new alignment at 

the first decision/action level. Rerouting of roads was considered feasible for three 

roads: Highway 1 (assumed to have already occurred), Highway 281 south of US 

Highway 2, and Highway 281 north of US Highway 2. 

Selected Flood Protection Strategies 

Table 5-2 summarizes the features and most likely flood protection strategies. 

West Bay Outlet (Peterson Coulee) 

Alternative outlet alignments considered are shown on Figure 5-4. Most outlet 

alternatives that have been seriously developed in the past have drawn water from the 

West Bay of Devils Lake. This area has the best water quality in the area of the lake that 

is located relatively near the Sheyenne River. Because of opposition from the Spirit Lake 

Tribe over the shorter, lower Twin Lakes route, an outlet that incorporates Peterson 

Coulee is the recommended route from the West Bay. In 1998, a 300-cfs capacity outlet 

along this route was substantially designed and developed using a pipeline to convey 

water from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River. This configuration minimizes impacts

5-37
 Table 5-2: Infrastructure Strategies 

Feature Description Most Likely Action Strategy 

Communities and Cities (includes wastewater treatment facilities, hospitals, and schools) 

1. Churchs Ferry Incremental Relocations 

2. City of Devils Lake Incremental Levee Raises 

3. Fort Totten Incremental Relocations 

4. City of Minnewaukan Incremental Levee Raises 

5. St. Michael Incremental Relocations 

State Facilities

6. Gilbert C. Grafton State Military Reservation Incremental Road and Levee Raises 

7. Grahams Island State Park Relocate Structures and Raise Access 

Road 

Rural Areas 

8.1 Devils Lake Rural Areas Structure Relocation 

8.2 Stump Lake Rural Areas Structure Relocation 

Rail Lines

9. Red River Valley and Western Railroad: 

Minnewaukan South 

N/A 

10. Canadian Pacific Railroad: City of Devils Lake 

to Harlow 

Incremental Rail Raises 

11. Burlington Northern Railroad: Along US 

Highway 2 

Incremental Rail Raises 

12. Burlington Northern Railroad: Churchs Ferry to 

Cando 

Incremental Rail Raises 

Roads

13. US Highway 2 Incremental Road Raises 

14. Highway 57 between Highway 20 and BIA 1 Incremental Road Raises 

15. Highway 57 between BIA 1 and Highway 281 Incremental Road Raises 

16. Highway 281 South of US Highway 2 Incremental Road Raises 

17. Highway 281 North of US Highway 2 Incremental Road Raises 

18. Highway 19 from the City of Devils Lake Levee 

to Highway 281 

Incremental Road Raises 

19. Highway 1 Relocate Road 

20. Highway 20 North of the City of Devils Lake Incremental Road Raises 

21. Highway 20 from the City of Devils Lake Levee 

to Highway 57 

Incremental Road Raises 

22. Highway 20 between Highway 57 and Tokio Incremental Road Raises 

23. BIA 1 between Highway 57 and BIA 6 Incremental Road Raises 

24. BIA 6 between Highway 20 and Fort Totten Incremental Road Raises 

5-38
 

Figure 5-4: Devils Lake Basin 

along the outlet route in exchange for moderate increases in estimated construction costs 

over open channel alternates. This outlet alternative has a total length of about 14 miles 

and crosses the divide at approximately elevation 1570 feet above mean sea level (msl). 

The northernmost 11⁄2 to 2 miles of this route lie within the Fort Totten Indian 

Reservation, but there are no impacts to Tribal trust lands because affected reservation 

lands are all in private ownership. 

The West Bay outlet (see Figure 5-5) alternative requires a high head pump station to 

convey water through the pipeline. The pump station would be constructed east of 

Round Lake and Highway 281 to draw water from Devils Lake and convey it under the 

highway and over the divide to the Sheyenne River. The underground pipeline would 

extend from the pump station on Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River and is approximately 

70,100 feet (13.3 miles) long. The first high-pressure section, approximately 14,000 feet 

long, would be either ductile iron pipe or steel pipe and the remainder would be 

reinforced concrete pipe. See Table 5-3 for costs for this alternative. The section of 

pipeline that runs down Peterson Coulee could be replaced by open channel flow over a 

series of drop structures. 

5-39
Figure 5-5: West End Alternative Features 

5-40
Table 5-3: Alternative Costs 

5-41
However, past evaluations of this feature have concluded that the pipeline is preferred 

over the open channel. Further discussion of the selection of 300 cfs and 480 cfs as the 

outlet capacities being considered is provided in Appendix A. 

300 cfs Constrained Flow 

The outlet developed in 1998 was designed to be able to discharge a maximum of 

300 cfs. It was also designed to operate at less than full capacity in order to meet water 

quality and channel capacity limits at the insertion point on the Sheyenne River. The 

standard for maximum sulfate concentration in the Sheyenne River is 450 milligrams per 

liter (mg/l) and the nominal channel capacity for the upper reaches of the Sheyenne River 

is approximately 600 cfs. In order to stay below these limits and still pump at maximum

efficiency for drawing down Devils Lake, a pumping system is required that can provide 

highly variable quantities of flow. For the 1998 design, the pumping station design 

incorporated many small (10 cfs) and medium (50 cfs) size pumps in order to be able to 

provide the increment of flow desired. The many smaller pumps were used because the 

electrically driven pumps can be readily varied by only a small percentage from their 

rated capacity. It is recognized now that a much less costly pump station could be 

constructed using just a few large pumps, such as three 100-cfs pumps. Constructing a 

small reservoir area just before the pipeline enters Peterson Coulee could provide 

variable flow desired. A gate on the outlet of the reservoir would allow water to be 

metered into the pipeline to the Sheyenne River. The level of water in the reservoir 

would be maintained within a set range by cycling the pumps in the pump station off and 

on. The estimated cost for this alternative is shown in Table 5-3. This cost estimate 

incorporates the more efficiently sized pump station with a control reservoir. 

480 cfs Unconstrained Flow 

In 1999, analysis of the rising lake indicated that a 480-cfs outlet operating without water 

quality or channel capacity constraints would be needed in order to stabilize the lake at 

elevation 1447, if precipitation continued at the rate it had been for the previous 7 years. 

Therefore, an alternative outlet out of West Bay has been developed with this outlet 

capacity. No new design was conducted for this outlet versus the 300-cfs constrained flow 

outlet. Approximate costs shown in Table 5-3 were determined by increasing the costs 

estimated for the 300-cfs flow pump station by a ratio of the outlet capacity. 

Pelican Lake Outlet

The largest inflows into Devils Lake come from Big Coulee and enter Devils Lake 

through Pelican Lake, which is on the north side of the West Bay. Water quality in Big 

Coulee is similar to that in the Sheyenne River, making Pelican Lake water much fresher 

than the rest of Devils Lake, particularly after high runoff events. Therefore, an outlet 

that withdraws water from Pelican Lake seems attractive because it is the freshest water 

available in Devils Lake. This could allow the outlet to be more effective in drawing 

down the lake with flows constrained for water quality than could be expected at other 

outlet locations. It could also have the least impacts on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. 

5-42
This intake location was briefly considered in a 1988 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

feasibility study. More serious consideration and conceptual designs for an outlet from

Pelican Lake were investigated in the winter of 1999, after it was found that the 

effectiveness of constrained-flow West Bay outlets was less than desired. 

Several alternatives from Pelican Lake have been considered for the current study. The 

basic method of transferring water from Pelican Lake to the Sheyenne River is the same

for all of the alternatives. The distance between a potential inlet on Pelican Lake and the 

Sheyenne River is a little over 22 miles. The water must be transported south across the 

flat Devils Lake basin and then up and over the divide to the Sheyenne River. Peterson 

Coulee lies within the direct route and would be used similarly to the West Bay outlet 

alternative. The differences in the plans are in the way that Pelican Lake is separated 

from the rest of Devils Lake and used to provide fresher water for the outlet. In some of 

the alternatives, Pelican Lake is considered as just another bay in Devils Lake. In other 

alternatives, water in Pelican Lake is completely separated from the rest of Devils Lake 

so that inflow down Big Coulee is effectively rerouted directly to the Sheyenne River. In 

addition, the goals for water quality on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers differ between 

alternatives. The common features of the Pelican Lake outlet are described in the 

following paragraphs. 

Based on the 1999 conceptual studies, the first step in withdrawing water from Pelican 

Lake would be along a 6.1-mile-long open channel from Pelican Lake to a pump station 

located on the north side of Minnewaukan. The channel would run from Pelican Lake 

through low ground and then cross Highway 281. It then would follow Highway 281 to 

the north side of Minnewaukan. Much of this alignment is currently under water. 

Portions of the existing ground along the proposed channel alignment are at or below 

elevation 1435 feet msl and wide enough that excavation would not be required. 

From the end of the channel on the north side of Minnewaukan, water would be pumped 

through a pipeline about 16.1 miles long to the Sheyenne River. Initial design work 

indicated that about 24,000 feet of the pipeline would be ductile iron or steel pipe and the 

remainder would be reinforced concrete. The pump station and pipeline would be similar 

to that required for the West Bay outlet through Peterson Coulee, but would have higher 

design pressures because of the longer length of the pipeline. A control reservoir near the 

watershed divide would be used to regulate discharge to the gravity flow pipeline. This 

reservoir is assumed to be approximately 300 feet by 300 feet with perimeter embankment. The pipeline used for the outlet is not designed to accommodate reverse flow. 

As an alternate configuration, the West Bay outlet could be constructed and Pelican Lake 

water could be brought to this pump station. Initial indications from concepts studied in 

1999 were that this would be significantly more costly than the concept presented above. 

A more detailed analysis of outlet routes performed by Barr Engineering in late 2001 

confirmed this. The preferred Pelican Lake outlet is therefore as described here. 

5-43
More fresh water would be available from Big Coulee into Pelican Lake if the historical 

drainage route from Dry Lake to Big Coulee were restored. Drainage from Dry Lake was 

diverted directly to Devils Lake through Channel A in 1979. A new channel could be 

constructed on the northwest side of Dry Lake to allow it to drain to the chain of lakes 

that flow into Big Coulee. The control structure at the head of Channel A would be used 

to control flows out of Dry Lake in both the new channel and the existing channel. The 

initial assumption for operations is that the Channel A control structure would be closed 

to divert outflow from Dry Lake to Big Coulee as long as the flow rate in Big Coulee is 

less than 2,000 cfs. If the flow in Big Coulee exceeded 2,000 cfs, the Channel A control 

structure would be opened enough to allow excess discharge from Dry Lake to flow 

directly through Channel A to Devils Lake. The operation plan will be refined as design 

of the outlet progresses. The adequacy of the existing Channel A control structure to 

perform this operation plan will also be verified in further design. The Dry Lake 

Diversion feature is included in all of the Pelican Lake alternatives that were analyzed. 

Pelican Lake Alternative PL-1 

For Pelican Lake Alternative PL-1, the Pelican Lake area is considered as essentially just 

another bay of Devils Lake. However, the Highways 19 and 281 embankments would 

separate Pelican Lake water from the rest of Devils Lake so that water can only flow 

between these areas through the channel under the bridge on Highway 19. The existing 

culverts under Highway 281 and County Road 19 would be plugged. Under periods of 

high precipitation, fresh water from Big Coulee would fill Pelican Lake and better quality 

water would be available to pump to the Sheyenne River. Under periods of low 

precipitation, drawing water out of Pelican Lake would result in inflow to the area from

Devils Lake and a worsening of the quality of water available to pump to the Sheyenne 

River. 

In response to Devils Lake rises to date, Highways 281 and 19 have been raised to 

minimum elevations of 1451.5 and 1455, respectively. The road embankments could be 

raised as the lake level rose in order to continue to separate the bodies of water. Cost 

estimates for the embankment raises have been developed and incorporated into the 

economic analysis. A tieback levee would be needed along the section road on the north 

side of Minnewaukan from Highway 281 to high ground. For this alternative, two outlets 

were considered:

300 cfs Constrained Flow: For this outlet, the pumping rate would be constrained by the 

450-mg/l sulfate concentration standard for the Sheyenne River and the nominal 

Sheyenne River channel capacity of 600 cfs. Costs for the 300-cfs constrained flow 

outlet from Pelican Lake were developed where possible by using the costs developed for 

the West Bay outlet and ratioing them by the lengths and sizes required for the Pelican 

Lake outlet. New cost estimates were developed for features unique to this plan such as 

the inlet channel from Pelican Lake to the pump station, the control structures under the 

highway embankments, and any embankments that are needed. 

5-44
480 cfs Unconstrained Flow: A 480-cfs unconstrained flow outlet from Pelican Lake 

would be more effective in drawing down lake levels than a 300-cfs constrained flow 

outlet. In addition, it could be able to discharge better quality water into the Sheyenne 

River than an unconstrained flow outlet from the West Bay, except in dry periods when 

there was little inflow into Pelican Lake. Costs for a 480-cfs outlet were developed by 

using a ratio of the costs estimated for the 300-cfs unconstrained flow outlet, where 

appropriate. Costs for some of the features, such as the embankment raises and the 

channel from Dry Lake to Chain of Lakes, are independent of the outlet capacity. 

Pelican Lake Alternative PL-2 

For Pelican Lake Alternative PL-2, Pelican Lake and the area upstream of it would be 

completely separated from the rest of Devils Lake along the Highways 19 and 281 

embankments. The upstream area would then be continually pumped down and 

subsequently refilled by inflow from Big Coulee, creating a direct (although limited) 

connection from Big Coulee to the Sheyenne River. For alternative PL-2, it was assumed 

that the Pelican Lake area could be pumped down as low as elevation 1441.4 and allowed 

to fill up to a level equal to the rest of Devils Lake. When inflows caused the level in 

Pelican Lake to rise to the level of Devils Lake, excess water would then be allowed to 

flow into the West Bay of Devils Lake to prevent additional flood damages in the Pelican 

Lake area. The level in the Pelican Lake area would then depend on the amount that can 

be pumped, the amount of inflow, and the level of Devils Lake. The amount that could 

be pumped would be determined by the amount of inflow, the pumping capacity of the 

pump station, and water quality and quantity constraints on the Sheyenne River. The 

pump station capacity for this alternative has been set at 480 cfs in order to be able to 

discharge as much as possible to be effective in reducing lake levels. 

A control structure would be needed where Highway 19 crosses Big Coulee below 

Pelican Lake to control flow between the area north of Highway 19 and the West Bay of 

Devils Lake. As presently conceived, the structure would be on the east side of the 

existing bridge crossing on the centerline of the existing highway. The structure would 

consist of an earth embankment to block the coulee and would use a gate well and 

concrete pipes to control flow through the structure. Under most conditions, the gates 

would be closed and the structure would separate Pelican Lake and the West Bay of 

Devils Lake. When inflows raised the level of Pelican Lake to the level of Devils Lake, 

the gates would be opened to allow excess water to flow into Devils Lake until the 

inflows subsided to the pumping capacity of the outlet. 

For this alternative, it was assumed that the pumping rate would be constrained by a limit 

of 250 mg/l for sulfate concentration in the Sheyenne River and the nominal Sheyenne 

River channel capacity of 600 cfs. The 250-mg/l target for sulfate concentration in the 

Sheyenne River was chosen in order to provide an outlet that would have very minimal 

effects on the water quality in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers compared to existing 

conditions, rather than just meeting the standard for sulfate in the Sheyenne River as was 

done for the PL-1 and West Bay 300-cfs constrained flow alternatives. 

5-45
Under this plan, the head across the embankments separating the Pelican Lake area from

the West Bay of Devils Lake could be 10 feet or more if levels in Devils Lake were to 

increase and the Pelican Lake area was pumped down to 1441.4. The embankments 

separating the two areas would then function as dams. The existing road embankments 

were not designed as dams and have not been constructed to standards expected of dam

embankments. For this reason, this alternative would be expected to require a significant 

amount of work to develop a safe dam embankment between the two areas. The existing 

road embankments could perhaps be upgraded to accomplish this, but for this planning 

report it was assumed that a new dam embankment would be constructed north of 

Highway 19 and west of Highway 281 between Highway 19 and Minnewaukan. A 

cofferdam would first need to be constructed, and the area between it and the road could 

be dewatered under controlled conditions to construct the new dam embankment. As 

currently conceived, the dam embankment would be constructed with a top elevation of 

1457 feet msl and be able to safely withstand a lake elevation of 1454 feet msl with 3 feet 

of freeboard. 

Costs for the outlet portions of the alternative are the same as for PL-1. However, costs 

have been added for the Highway 19 control structure and for the embankments along 

Highways 281 and 19. The inlet channel costs shown for PL-2 differ slightly from PL-1 

due to slightly different assumptions in the depth required for the inlet channel. 

Pelican Lake Alternative PL-3 

The Pelican Lake alternative PL-3 is very similar to the PL-2 alternative. The difference 

is that this plan allows inflow to be stored on the Pelican Lake side of the embankments 

as high as elevation 1454 feet msl, regardless of the level of Devils Lake. If Pelican Lake 

rises to 1454 feet msl, any excess inflow would then be discharged into Devils Lake 

through the Highway 19 control structure. Operating with a storage pool up to elevation 

1454 feet msl would allow for more storage of fresh water and a greater ability to reduce 

the level of Devils Lake. However, it would require flooding of lands that otherwise 

would not be flooded. 

The only changes from PL-2 are the additional costs for the higher storage pool. The 

additional costs are for land easements, rural structure relocations, and raising of affected 

roads and railroads to protect against water levels of elevation 1454 feet msl or greater 

upstream of Highway 19. 

East Devils Lake Outlet

An outlet could be constructed from East Devils Lake that would require the least amount 

of construction of any outlet plan. The channel could follow existing low ground to and 

around Stump Lake and then across the natural outlet and down Tolna Coulee to the 

Sheyenne River. The divide elevation between West Stump Lake and Tolna Coulee is 

just 1459, making gravity flow outlets out of this end of the basin possible. There is 

another natural outlet that flows southwest from East Devils Lake and then bends around 

to the southeast where it becomes Tolna Coulee. The maximum elevation over this route 

5-46
is just 1465, but the minimum ground elevation is over 1460 for over a mile, requiring 

much more excavation for an outlet than the route along Stump Lake. 

Water quality is much worse in East Devils Lake than in the western part of the lake. 

Outlets from the east end of Devils Lake designed and operated to constrain discharges to 

meet water quality standards on the Sheyenne River are not at all effective in reducing 

Devils Lake levels. The East End outlet alternative has therefore been conceived to 

operate with flows unconstrained by water quality in the Sheyenne River. 

Because of the poor water quality, outlet alternatives from the east end of the lake have 

not been developed beyond conceptual levels in the past. An outlet alternative from this 

end of the lake is now being considered because, if operated in an unconstrained manner, 

it: 1) would have the lowest first cost and operating cost of any outlet; 2) would be as 

effective as other unconstrained flow alternatives in controlling further rises in lake 

levels; 3) would minimize impacts to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge and other land 

around Stump Lake; 4) would provide an economic basis for quantifying the additional 

cost for releasing better water quality by selecting alternatives from locations in the 

western part of the lake; and 5) is preferred by inhabitants around the lake because it 

would enhance the water quality in the entire Devils Lake, which they hope will result in 

the creation of a recreational resource for the region. 

For this alternative, the outlet from the east end of Devils Lake would be a grass-lined 

gravity flow channel that initially would follow the natural overflow channel along 

Jerusalem Coulee between Devils Lake and Stump Lake. At Stump Lake, the channel 

would be constructed along the west side of the lake until it reached the natural outlet 

from Stump Lake, which is in an existing channel that obviously formed an outlet for the 

Devils Lake basin in some historical period. From there, it would continue along the 

natural Stump Lake outlet route until the channel invert intersected natural ground in 

Tolna Coulee. From there, Devils Lake water would flow down Tolna Coulee into the 

Sheyenne River. The excavated portion of the channel is about 16 miles long. The outlet 

route from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River is about 28 miles long. 

A channel was designed that could allow 480 cfs to flow out of Devils Lake when the 

lake elevation is 1446 or more. The channel as currently designed has a bottom width of 

24 feet, side slopes of 4 on 1, and a bottom slope of 0.00005. The invert at the beginning 

of the channel would be about elevation 1437 and transitions into Tolna Coulee at about 

elevation 1432. Most of the channel excavation is 5 to 12 feet deep, but through the 

Stump Lake natural outlet the required excavation depths are up to 30 feet. Drop 

structures would be required to control erosion. A drop structure might also be required 

where the channel transitions into Tolna Coulee because the natural channel is rather 

steep there. 

5-47
A gated structure would be needed at a road crossing on the divide between Devils Lake 

and Stump Lake in order to control outflows to the maximum operating discharge of 

480 cfs. However, very large inflows into Devils Lake may exceed the operationally 

constrained outflow limitations. This would require that excess water be passed into 

Stump Lake to prevent project-created flood damages around Devils Lake. The gated 

structure, therefore, would need to be designed to pass excess flows into Stump Lake, 

as well as control flows into the channel. 

The water quality in East Devils Lake is better than in Stump Lake. Therefore, it is 

desirable to prevent Stump Lake from overflowing into the outlet channel where it skirts 

the edge of Stump Lake. The current design incorporates features to prevent Stump Lake 

from inundating the channel even if Stump Lake fills to an elevation of 1459. The 

channel around Stump Lake follows approximately the 1448 contour, and excavation 

from the channel would be used to construct an embankment on the Stump Lake side of 

the channel that would keep channel water separate from Stump Lake water. The design 

and cost estimate include the use of riprap to prevent erosion of the embankment under 

high Stump Lake levels. 

Raise Natural Outlet

A study objective is to reduce the potential for a natural overflow event and thereby 

reduce potential damages on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers that a natural overflow would 

cause. One way of doing this would be to raise the elevation of the natural outlet so that 

an overflow event would have less chance of occurring. The unfortunate trade-off would 

be higher potential lake levels in the Devils Lake basin if climatic conditions did result in 

water elevations that would have spilled over the natural outlet without the outlet raise. 

To determine the potential benefits for this alternative, a dam/weir was conceptually 

designed that would be high enough to prevent overflow due to climatic conditions 

modeled in the wet scenario. To do this, the crest of the dam/weir is designed at 

elevation 1463 feet msl. It is conceived that the dam/weir would be constructed as a 

380-foot-wide concrete drop structure across the channel that forms the natural outlet. 

In the event actual conditions are wetter than those represented by the wet scenario, the 

structure could be overtopped. Therefore, it has been designed to remain intact even if 

the channel downstream of the weir eroded down to elevation 1450. This is the elevation 

that has been identified as approximately the lowest elevation down to which the natural 

overflow might be expected to erode. 

The approximate cost for the alternative to raise the natural outlet is shown in Table 5-3. 

It was analyzed only under the wet future scenario. Costs for the Devils Lake 

Infrastructure Raise in the table are costs for raising roads, railroads, levees, etc., that 

would be affected as the lake elevation rose above the natural outlet elevation of 1459 feet 

msl.

5-48
Upper Basin Storage

This alternative examines taking further measures in the upper basin to reduce inflow 

into the lake by the restoration of “drained” depressions in the 2,616-square-mile upper 

basin watershed. A vast amount of geographic and historical data was collected to (1) 

delineate and classify the depressions, and (2) develop a physically based hydrologic 

model to simulate the hydrologic functions of the depressions. 

Depressions in the Upper Basin were delineated and classified as possibly intact, possibly 

drained, lake, or other based on information obtained from a combination of aerial 

photos, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data, flow direction data, and digital quad 

maps. The qualifier “possibly” was added to the drainage designation because field 

verification was not performed during this study. Approximately 294,400 acres of 

depressions were identified, of which 92,400 acres were identified as possibly drained. 

A custom hydrologic model, the Pothole-River Networked Watershed Model (PRINET) 

was developed to simulate the depression storage, soil storage, and runoff in the Devils 

Lake basin. This model was developed in order to analyze the effectiveness of reducing 

runoff into Devils Lake by increasing upper basin storage. The model was calibrated to 

historic streamflows for water years 1985 through 1999. It was then used to simulate 

future conditions with and without restoration of drained depressions. Only depressions 

with a depth equal to or greater than 0.5 foot were considered as candidates for 

restoration. Eighty-six percent of the surface area of the total possibly drained depression 

area met this criterion. In the simulation of future conditions, four different levels of 

restoration were analyzed. These levels represented 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 

total drained depression volume that could be gained by restoration. For this analysis 

to determine effects on Devils Lake stage effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, only 

50 percent of the possibly drained depressions by volume, with depths greater than 6 in., 

were used. The assumed 50-percent utilization of the possibly drained depressions is felt 

to be a reasonable amount of the total drainage that could be acquired and effective in 

water storage. No effort was made to optimize the most effective depressional areas to 

be used for storage. (See Appendix A, Section 8, for a more detailed explanation.) 

The amount of storage carry-over varies from year to year depending on the depression 

surface area and evaporation rate. Generally, the annual available depression storage is 

less than the total depression storage. In dry years, the available storage, and the flow 

reductions resulting from this storage, will be larger than in wet years. 

The Upper Basin Management alternative increases the amount of available upper basin 

storage volume by 63,000 acre-feet, from a “possibly intact” volume of 482,000 acre-feet 

to 545,000 acre-feet. On the basis of current studies by WEST Consulting, this is estimated 

to be approximately 50 percent of the total available upper basin storage. Implementation 

of this alternative would require placement of approximately 39,000 acres of land into an 

upper basin storage program. Much of this land is currently farmland. 

5-49
The analysis assumes that the storage is in place when the lake is above elevation 1440. 

Previous programs have varied from an annual program to one with a 10-year contract. 

Therefore, it is assumed that an expanded program could involve contract lengths for any 

duration up to 10 years. Implementation of an upper basin storage program would 

involve construction of outlet structures, acquisition or leasing of land, and development 

of an operating plan for outlet structures when the lake recedes. On the basis of these 

items, it was assumed that the implementation of the storage would cost $1,000 per acre. 

Therefore, the total project costs are $39,681,000. 

Expanded Infrastructure Protection

Portions of some roadways are currently serving as barriers to the rising and expanding 

waters of Devils Lake. These roads are acting as dams but they were not constructed to 

function as dams. This presents the possibility of safety concerns for road users and 

people living in areas protected by the roads. This alternative examines additional 

infrastructure measures beyond those described in the “without-project” base condition to 

ensure a safe level of flood protection within the basin for land protected by roads. The 

“future without-project” base condition considers any land not protected by 

embankments designed specifically as dams to be effectively lost due to flooding. 

The segments of road currently acting as dams include portions of Highways ND 20 and 

57 and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Roads 1, 4, and 5 on the Fort Totten Indian 

Reservation. The total length of roads acting as dams is currently about 8 miles. The 

Federal Highway Administration will not allow the use of Federal highway funds for any 

future work on those highway segments serving as dams unless their safety can be 

certified. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, part 650, section 115 (23 CFR 

650.115) requires that such embankments must have approval from an agency 

responsible for the safety of dams. The Army Corps of Engineers has certification 

responsibility for the safety of dams and the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers cannot 

certify the existing roads as dams without major modifications that would likely include 

additional embankment and methods for controlling seepage on the protected side of the 

road. The roads currently holding back water have a number of concerns including 

embedded culverts, evidence of seepage, inadequate compaction during construction as 

raises took place while the roads were under water, and embedded layers of asphalt and 

aggregate. Conceptual design work has identified the need for major modifications that 

would likely include additional embankment with a clay core and methods for controlling 

seepage on the dry side of the existing road. 

The Devils Lake Transportation Task Force developed alternatives that could be used as 

a physical solution to the current safety issue of roadway embankments serving as dams. 

Each alternative included costs at three water elevations, those being 1447, 1450 

(embankment height of 1455), and 1460 (embankment height of 1465). In all 

alternatives, dams would be built on the “dry” side of the roads, if possible. In areas 

away from the roads, the dams would be constructed in the dry by building cofferdams 

and dewatering the site. The basic features for earth dams that have been selected to 

control under- and through-seepage are the inspection trench, inclined and horizontal 

5-50
sand drains and filter, and an impervious core. In addition, clearing, grubbing, and the 

inspection trench would identify and cut off any weak or compressible soils, abandoned 

drain tile, pipes, culverts, or wells, and sand lenses in the foundation. The inspection 

trench would be filled with compacted embankment fill. The embankment would be 

constructed of compacted impervious fill. 

For the cost estimate used in the economic analysis, a road-as-dams alternative was 

selected, where perimeter dams would be constructed between high ground to reduce the 

number of roads that need to be raised and minimize the amount of homes and land 

inundated by floodwaters. Culverts would be placed through the roads, allowing water 

pressures to equalize across the road embankments. The cost of the flood protection 

portion of this work (i.e., highway and bridge raises are assumed to be funded by others) 

is $17 million for the stochastic analysis, where the 50-percent probability of future lake 

stages is about elevation 1450 feet msl. For the wet future scenario, where the stage 

would reach elevation 1460 feet msl, the estimated cost is $61 million. It was assumed 

that the raise for a lake elevation of 1447 feet msl had already occurred. The costs of 

interior drainage are not addressed in this cost estimate. Some pumping with portable 

pumps would be required; however, with numerous ponding areas typically available, the 

pumping costs are expected to be minimal. Some overexcavation was assumed to 

remove weak soils where it appears the alignment goes through wetlands. The dams

would be situated in the general location of the temporary levees that are now providing 

protection. Construction cofferdams would be required in some but not all locations 

because the ground surface along the embankment alignment is sometimes above the 

existing lake level. The cost estimate reflects those locations that require cofferdams 

both on the lake side and land side of the dam in order to construct it in the dry. 

Combinations

In addition to evaluation of the above alternatives independently, two combinations of 

these alternatives have been examined to better determine the relative effectiveness and 

economy of the alternatives. 

Combination 1 - Upper Basin Storage and Expanded Infrastructure Protection

This combination combines the Upper Basin Storage alternative with the Expanded 

Infrastructure Protection alternative. These alternatives are relatively low cost and risk 

alternatives that do not create project-related impacts on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. 

Combination 2 - Upper Basin Storage, Expanded Infrastructure Protection, and 300-cfs 

West Bay Outlet

This option combines the alternatives from combination 1 with an outlet alternative. The 

300-cfs West Bay outlet was selected to be used in this combination with the in-basin 

measures because it is the lowest cost of the outlet alternatives from the fresher side of 

the lake. The assumption in developing this combination was that, by combining several 

5-51
alternatives, the outlet should be less costly and would not require the higher degree of 

effectiveness of the more expensive outlet alternatives. 

Cost Estimates

Table 5-3 shows estimated costs for most of the alternatives used in the economic 

analysis. The final cost estimates for the alternatives that will be carried forward for the 

detailed evaluation (pages 5-118 to 5-158) vary from the estimates shown in this table 

since the final cost estimates (and resulting Benefit-Cost Ratios) are developed with a 

greater level of detail. Annual costs for both the stochastic future and the wet future 

scenario are shown because operational costs differ depending on lake elevation and, in 

the case of the constrained flow outlets, water quantity and quality on the Sheyenne 

River. 

The costs shown for real estate include the cost for lands and the administration costs to 

purchase right-of-way for construction of the project around Devils Lake. There will also 

be real estate costs for easements required along the Sheyenne River to compensate 

landowners for incremental flood damage caused by the project. For the economic 

analysis, these incremental flood damages were included with project benefits (as 

negative benefits) rather than as project costs. 

The annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the stochastic analysis represent 

average operating costs for the 10,000 traces. The O&M cost for the wet future is the 

average yearly cost for operation for that one trace. The operation and maintenance costs 

for the pumped outlets are derived from several factors. One is general O&M for the 

alternative, assumed to be 1 percent of the construction costs for years when the outlet is 

operating and 0.5 percent of the construction costs for years when the outlet is idle. For 

the outlets with pumps, there is also a replacement cost for the pumps after 25 years of 

operation and a cost for power for the outlet. The annual power costs are determined by 

the total volume of water pumped per year, the total dynamic head of the pump station, 

the motor efficiency, and the cost for the electricity. Electric rates used for the analysis 

are $0.0225 per kilowatt-hour. The total dynamic head is 240 feet for the West Bay 

pump station and 270 feet for the Pelican Lake pump station. 

Annual costs for downstream water treatment (on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers) were 

determined from the downstream water users model. These costs are the costs for 

treatment of river water used by communities and industry to the base condition it would 

have had without the outlet. They were developed from the traces (wet, two moderate 

traces, and dry) and are averaged over the 50 years of each trace. Treatment costs for the 

stochastic future were developed from the four traces. In the economic model, the 

downstream water treatment costs are treated as benefits (negative benefits) rather than 

costs, but would be part of the project cost if one of the alternatives were constructed. 

The dry trace was included in the modeling only for defining costs associated with the 

stochastic future and was not analyzed separately as a future scenario. 

5-52
For the East End outlet alternative, only the wet future scenario was analyzed for 

downstream costs. The treatment cost shown for the stochastic analysis was extrapolated 

from the wet future treatment costs for the West Bay 480-cfs outlet. 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

General (Effectiveness, Efficiency, Acceptability) 

During the preparation of this report, various alternatives were evaluated to determine the 

highest expected net benefits. Additionally, cost-effectiveness of alternatives was 

bracketed in terms of a range of scenarios for various assumed future lake stages. Much 

of this evaluation was based on data and modeling that were already available. 

The base condition to which other alternatives were compared for impact assessment is 

considered the future without a proposed project condition. This alternative assumes that 

the types of emergency measures currently being pursued in the project area would 

continue to be implemented as necessary as the lake continues to rise. These emergency 

measures include such actions as raising the levees protecting the City of Devils Lake 

and relocating homes if the lake level continues to rise. If technically and economically 

feasible, they may also include building temporary levees, raising selected roads and 

railroads (within limits of reasonable safety acceptance), and protecting or relocating 

utilities. A continuation of the current level of upper basin storage and measures to 

minimize erosion at the location of a natural overflow were also considered as potential 

features of the most likely future without the proposed project. 

The stochastic analysis identifies that there is about a 9.4-percent probability that the lake 

will overflow sometime during the next 50 years. Given this probability, the 

environmental analysis based on the stochastic future assumes it is unlikely that the lake 

will overflow naturally. The downstream conditions would be determined by forecasting 

the existing conditions and determining the effects of project alternatives by themselves. 

For the portion of the cost-effectiveness evaluation using a scenario approach, it was 

assumed that the wet cycle continues at the same degree of wetness as occurred in 1993 

through 1999 to the point of naturally overflowing into the Sheyenne River. The wet 

future scenario repeats the climatic and hydrologic conditions for the seven highest 

inflow years in recent history (1993-1999) for three cycles, causing the lake to overflow. 

Proposed actions by the State of North Dakota, such as an overflow to Stump Lake and a 

temporary outlet to the Sheyenne River, were not assumed to be included in the no-action 

alternative at this time. A permit has been issued for the Stump Lake channel, but the 

conditions for operation make it quite ineffective. Therefore, it may never be 

implemented. The State is continuing to pursue a temporary outlet from West Bay, with 

initial capacity of 100 cfs, and plans to initiate operation in the spring of 2003. The 

proposed plan is controversial, however, and still has a high level of uncertainty. A 

sensitivity analysis of including the temporary outlet as part of the base condition has 

been performed and is described later in this report. If either or both plans are

implemented, or appear likely to be implemented, the evaluation of alternatives will be 

5-53
reviewed to determine what measures are needed to complete National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements with this changed base condition. 

To better understand the sensitivity of assumptions used for assessing the likelihood of 

future lake conditions, alternatives were evaluated in comparison to other base 

conditions. Areas investigated under the sensitivity portion of alternative evaluation 

included: 

a) No action. 

b) A more moderate1 future lake scenario – maximum elevation of 1455. 

c) Even more moderate future lake scenario – maximum elevation of 1450. 

d) Erosion of the natural outlet. 

e) Proposed temporary outlet as part of future conditions. 

f) Sulfate constraints and operational plan 

g) Dry Lake Diversion incremental justification 

Basis for a Scenario-Based Analysis in Addition to the Stochastic Analysis 

The U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) guidelines specify the use of “expected” 

annual flood damage. Expected damage accounts for the risk of various magnitudes of 

flood damage each year, weighing the damage caused by each flood by the probability of 

occurrences. Accordingly, the National Economic Development (NED) plan will be the 

flood damage reduction alternative that reasonably maximizes “expected” net benefits. 

The stochastic analysis for Devils Lake is designed to calculate expected net benefits. 

The scenario analysis can calculate net benefits for an assumed future but not “expected” 

net benefits. For this study, the stochastic analysis would, therefore, represent the 

method that best fits with the procedures used in accordance with Principles and 

Guidelines for economic evaluation for determination of probability-weighted damages. 

The WRC guidelines do not generally specify which model to use. However, because 

Devils Lake is a terminal lake, previous lake levels will affect lake levels in any given 

year. Therefore, the set of annual lake levels is not independent, and standard riverine 

analysis of lake levels cannot be applied. As a result, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) developed a stochastic simulation model that can be used to generate future lake 

levels and water quality of Devils Lake in response to future precipitation, evaporation, 

surface water inflow, and potential outlet discharges. The simulation model consists of 

three parts: (1) a statistical time series model for generating future precipitation, 

evaporation, and inflow for Devils Lake and Stump Lake and future discharges for the 

Sheyenne River; (2) a water and chemical mass-balance model for generating future 

volumes and sulfate concentrations in Devils Lake and Stump Lake in response to future 

precipitation, evaporation, and inflow; and (3) an outlet simulation model for generating 

daily outlet discharges and sulfate concentrations to meet downstream water quality and 

 

1 The terms “more moderate” and “even more moderate” are future scenarios that are relative to the 

wet future scenario and not to normal conditions. 

5-54
water quantity constraints in the Sheyenne River. The USGS simulation model is 

described in more detail in Appendix A. 

An important assumption of the stochastic model is that climate is stationary or timeinvariant; that is, climatic conditions in the Devils Lake basin in the “recent” past are 

representative of climatic conditions during the future project planning period. 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, the “recent” past 

is defined as the period 1980-1999. Although it is unknown exactly how long the current 

wet conditions may persist, or if even wetter conditions may be in store in the future, 

climate during the next 10 to15 years is likely to be similar to climate during the period 

1980-1999. 

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. 

Residents adjacent to a terminal lake such as Devils Lake would be some of the first to 

experience the impact of a small change in climate. 

Even small changes in precipitation or evaporation can have significant synergistic 

effects on lake level because these changes are integrated over 3,800 square miles. Small 

changes in precipitation and evaporation are not significant considerations for hydrometeorological phenomena such as riverine flood peak hydrology. Consequently, WRC 

guidelines assume climate invariance. However, for a hydroclimatological phenomenon 

such as a terminal lake, these considerations are very important for assessing lake level 

frequency because they are also cumulative in their impact and are subject to persistent 

weather patterns. (See Appendix A for further rationale for using the scenario approach 

in addition to the stochastic approach.) 

Lake Level Forecasting for Stochastic and Scenario-Based Approaches 

A major challenge for evaluating alternatives lies in assessing the likelihood of future 

lake levels. Devils Lake is currently a landlocked lake, so it is more difficult to estimate 

the frequency of future lake levels than it is for a simpler system, such as a river. Future 

lake levels are affected by a variety of climatic factors, as well as by the lake level in 

previous years and the groundwater level. The Economics Analysis evaluated the 

alternatives using two approaches to defining the future lake levels: a stochastic approach 

and a wet future scenario approach that is based on recent climatic conditions.

These future lake levels were generated from a lake model created by the USGS. That 

model created “traces” of future lake levels. Each trace is a 50-year sequence. 

Traces of lake levels were first created for the without-project condition. For each 

alternative that included a project that would affect lake levels (e.g., an outlet, or creation 

of additional upper basin storage), the model was modified. An additional trace (or set of 

traces) was then produced to evaluate the effect of the project in lowering lake levels. In 

5-55
this way, every with-project trace (or set of with-project traces) has a companion withoutproject trace (or set of without-project traces). 

Stochastic Analysis

The stochastic analysis determined the likelihood of future lake levels using a large set of 

possible future lake levels—10,000 traces. The large number of traces was generated as 

a way of dealing with the uncertainty regarding future lake levels. Because the 

calculations of the costs and benefits for any alternative depend on the estimate of future 

lake level frequency, any cost and benefit calculation can be no more reliable than the 

estimate of these frequencies. The stochastic analysis provides a large number of lake 

level series varying according to fluctuations regarding future weather patterns. By 

computing an alternative’s costs and benefits for each of the 10,000 traces, and then 

averaging those costs and benefits, a reasonable expectation of the cost and benefit for 

the alternative can be determined. 

For the stochastic analysis, every set of 10,000 with-project traces has a companion set of 

10,000 without-project traces. Because each trace reflects a particular 50-year projected 

climate future, each of the 50-year traces is different. 

The assumed stochastic future is wet relative to 1900 to 1999; however, it may not be 

considered wet if the 1800s could be included. The USGS and others believe that 1900 

to 1940 may be an aberration relative to climate of the last millennium. Compared to the 

wet future, it is not as wet. Compared to 1950 to 1999, it is wetter; however, not by a 

significant factor as it included the drought of 1988-1990. The probability of reaching 

the overflow elevation sometime in the next 15 years increased from 0.019 to 0.05. 

The first 15 years of the stochastic traces were generated based on the assumption that 

climatic conditions would be similar to those experienced during 1980-1999, reflecting 

the generally wetter conditions that the Devils Lake basin has been experiencing since 

1980.1 For the modeling, these conditions were assumed to persist until at least 2015.2 

After 2015, the simulation model assumes that climatic conditions can be represented by 

the longer historic period 1950-1999. The average peak lake level resulting from the 

stochastic analysis was 1451.7 and the median was 1450.1. (See Appendix A for further 

discussion of the stochastic analysis.) 

Wet Future Scenario Analysis

The wet future scenario analysis evaluated one set of 50-year lake levels that is based on 

very recent climatic conditions for the years 1993-1999. The wet future scenario repeats 

the climatic and hydrologic conditions for the seven highest inflow years in recent history 

 

1 The USGS identified evidence of non-stationarity in the precipitation record before and after the late 

1970’s. See Appendix A.

2 This assumption is based on the results of analysis conducted by Dr. Leon Osborne, Regional Weather 

Information Center, University of North Dakota.

5-56
(1993-1999) for three cycles, causing the lake to overflow. The remaining years of the 

50-year cycle were defined assuming climatic and hydrologic conditions similar to 1980 

through 1999, and then 1980 through 1990, to complete the 50-year trace. 

The wet future trace rises gradually for about 14 years until the natural overflow occurs 

in year 2014. The lake remains above the natural outlet elevation for about another 

11 years. The peak lake level for this scenario occurs in year 19, at an elevation of 

1460.6. There is a second peak that occurs near the end of the 50-year period; however, 

it has a lower peak flood level than the first peak, and no additional overflow occurs. 

Although the probability that the lake will rise exactly in this way is zero, more than 

5 percent of the traces would reach the overflow elevation of 1459 sometime within the 

next 15 years and 9.4 percent within the next 50 years. This scenario was chosen to 

represent the class of traces that would reach this overflow elevation for simulation of 

downstream impacts. An overflow trace from the stochastic model would have sufficed; 

however, this scenario also depicts a continuation of the recent wet period. The average 

peak lake level of all the stochastic traces that spill is 1461.1, which is 0.5 foot higher 

than the peak lake level of the wet scenario. 

Sensitivity Analyses 

To better understand the sensitivity of assumptions used for future lake conditions, both 

with and without project, the alternatives were compared to other possible conditions. 

The conditions compared for sensitivity are described below. 

No-Action Protection Strategy

The purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to perform a baseline check on the sensitivity 

of assumptions made to develop the “Most Likely Future Without-Project” protection 

strategy. The “No Action” protection strategy analysis assumes that no action 

whatsoever will be taken within the Devils Lake basin to protect local infrastructure as 

lake levels continue to rise. Thus, rising lake levels are assumed to result only in 

damages and there will be no costs associated with responses made to rising water levels 

such as road raises, levee raises, etc., that would avert damages. This scenario is not 

intended to represent a possible future. Its main purpose is to provide an upper bound for 

net benefits to be compared with the results using the “Most Likely Future WithoutProject” protection strategy. It also provides a means to check the effectiveness of 

continuing non-lake level influencing protection strategies, as is explained in the next 

paragraph. 

In addition to the alternatives listed under the section “Description of Alternatives,” an 

additional “alternative” was analyzed versus the “No Action” protection strategy, 

“Continued Infrastructure Protection.” The Continued Infrastructure Protection 

“alternative” is not an alternative in the sense that it is a potential project, but is intended 

to analyze the cost-effectiveness of carrying out incremental infrastructure protection 

measures as the lake continues to rise, just as these measures have been performed with 

rising lake levels in the recent past. The strategies for protection are essentially identical 

5-57
to the “Most Likely Future Without-Project” protection strategy. The Continued 

Infrastructure Protection “alternative” will also be combined with the upper basin 

management and with the 300-cfs West Bay outlet alternatives to analyze the costeffectiveness of these measures versus continuing incremental infrastructure protection. 

Moderate Future Scenarios

The wet future scenario assumes continuation of recent weather conditions that are 

significantly wetter than those that have occurred in the overall recorded climatological 

history of Devils Lake. To evaluate the assumptions in this scenario versus other 

possible futures, two other future scenarios with more moderate wetness were analyzed. 

Both of these scenarios were taken from the 10,000 traces used to perform the stochastic 

analysis of future lake levels. In one of the traces chosen, Devils Lake reaches a 

maximum without-project level of 1455 feet msl. In the other trace, the lake reaches a 

maximum elevation of 1450 feet msl. The term “moderate” is used for these futures as a 

relationship to the wet future and not to normal conditions. 

1455 Moderate Future Scenario – This Moderate Future represents those traces that 

have an average peak lake level of 1455 (approximately 25 percent of the stochastic 

traces). This moderate future trace was obtained from within the stochastic traces, as 

a trace that was representative of this category. 

1450 Moderate Future Scenario – This Moderate Future represents those traces that 

have an average peak lake level of 1450 (approximately 30 percent of the stochastic 

traces). This moderate future trace was obtained from within the stochastic traces, as 

a trace that was representative of this category. 

Erosion of Natural Outlet

The purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to evaluate the assumption under the “Future 

Without-Project” that the natural outlet would erode very minimally during an overflow 

event. This assumption was based on uncertainty regarding the amount of overflow, on 

how much it would erode, and on the conjecture that State or Federal agencies would 

protect the natural outlet at its current configuration in the case of a natural overflow. 

While it is nearly impossible to predict what may actually be implemented because of 

environmental, political, or social reasons, a sensitivity of this assumption was necessary 

to define the potential impacts to the economic feasibility of the alternatives. The erosion 

of the natural outlet was evaluated only for conditions resulting from the wet future 

scenario. 

Proposed Temporary Outlet as Part of Future Conditions

The State’s proposed temporary outlet was not included in the modeling and evaluation 

of alternatives since there was uncertainty of implementation and lack of actual design 

parameters of the plan were not determined at the time the Corps was preparing this 

report. There is high probability for delay or suspension of the plan due to possible 

5-58
litigation and permitting issues. Therefore, the Corps is not including this outlet in the 

future without project conditions analysis. 

 

However, to be responsive to comments regarding the need to consider the temporary 

outlet as part of the most likely future without project, a sensitivity analysis was 

performed assuming the temporary outlet is in place and would operate until the lake 

level is lowered to elevation 1441.4 to be consistent with the modeled permanent outlet 

plans. Although the actual minimum elevation for a temporary outlet may be only 1445, 

this refinement should not affect the analysis. Therefore, this sensitivity analysis 

evaluates the economic feasibility of the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet plan, assuming the 

state’s proposed temporary outlet is operational under the without-project conditions. 

For this analysis, the without-project condition assumes construction of the SWC 

temporary outlet only, and the with-project condition assumes construction of the Pelican 

Lake outlet only. The Pelican Lake outlet was assumed to begin construction 

immediately and be operational in 2005. The temporary outlet was assumed to be in 

place and operational until the lake level drops to elevation 1441.4. The outlet would 

draw water from West Bay and would begin operation at a capacity of 100 cfs by 

May 2004 and 300 cfs by May 2006. It would be constrained to not exceed 375 mg/l 

sulfate concentration or 600 cfs flow at the insertion point. 

Sulfate Constraints and Operational Plan 

A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the changes in stage effectiveness and 

downstream water quality if the sulfate constraint was reduced from 450 mg/l to as little 

as 250 mg/l for the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet plan. Additional analysis was also 

conducted to consider operating strategies for the outflow from dams in the Red River 

Basin in order to reduce the effects of discharge from a Devils Lake outlet on Red River 

water quality. 

Dry Lake Diversion Incremental Justification

The Dry Lake diversion portion of the Pelican Lake outlet is designed to increase the 

amount of relatively fresh water that is available for pumping through the outlet. The 

intent is to be able to pump greater quantities of water from the Devils Lake Basin and, 

thereby, increase the effectiveness of the outlet in lowering lake levels. The purpose of 

this sensitivity analysis is to analyze the effectiveness of this component of the outlet, 

both from an economic standpoint and from the standpoint of pure effectiveness in ability 

to decrease lake levels. 

STOCHASTIC EVALUATION 

5-59
Table 5-4 summarizes key indicators used in the evaluation of the alternatives for the 

stochastic analysis; namely, cost-effectiveness (both for the assumed likely future base 

condition and for the “No Action” base condition) and lake stage effectiveness. Water 

Table 5-4: Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost-Effectiveness and Lake Stage 

Effectiveness – Stochastic Analysis 

Total Costs Likely Future No Action 10% Probability

($m illion) [1] Annl.Net Ben. BCR BCR Lake Level [2]

Alternatives w ithin the Basin ($000's)

Upper Basin Stor.-50% (UBS) $40 -$1,877 0.29 [3] 0.59 [3] 1458

Expanded Infrastr.Prot. (EIP) $17 $1,261 2.10 0.27 1458.8

Raise Natural Outlet [4]

Outlet Alternatives

W est Bay Outlet (300 cfs) $88 -$4,206 0.28 0.50 1456

 (Peterson Coulee)

W est Bay Outlet (480 cfs) $168 -$11,115 0.01 0.49 1453

 (Peterson Coulee)

Pelican Lake Outlet (300 cfs) $117 -$4,893 0.37 0.69 1455

Pelican Lake Outlet (480 cfs) $206 -$12,364 0.10 0.47 1453

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL2 $227 -$13,071 0.14 0.25 1455

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL3 $324 -$17,206 0.21 0.38 1455

East End Outlet $108 -$7,121 0.02 0.75 1453

Com bination Alternatives

Com bination 1 (UBS, EIP) $56 -$586 0.84 0.50 1458

Com bin. 2 (UBS, EIP, Peterson/300) $141 -$5,083 0.46 0.46 1456

Continued Infrastructure Protection $139 2.57 1458.8

 (this is the "likely future" base 

 condition, as m easured against

 no action)

Notes:

 [1] - Total costs are present worth of all costs, including annual Operation and M aintenance

 [2] - W ith Stochastic future this lake level has a 10% probability of being reached or exceeded. 

 There is a 9.4 percent chance of the lake overtopping.

 [3] - Does not include downstream dam ages

 [4] - This alternative was not evaluated with the stochastic analysis.

quality models cannot be used to directly address in-lake or downstream water quality 

effects in a probabilistic sense, and will be presented only with the scenario-based 

analysis.

Cost-effectiveness 

Economic feasibility, or the determination of excess benefits over costs, is one of several 

criteria used for screening alternatives. Planning guidance directs that, all things being 

equal, the plan with the greatest annual expected net benefits be selected for 

implementation. Other criteria, though, such as social acceptability, environmental 

impact, technical feasibility, and effectiveness in solving the problem may influence the 

plan selection process. Two measures of economic feasibility, the benefit-cost ratio and 

annual net benefits, have been calculated for each alternative and are used to screen 

alternatives for selection of a plan. 

5-60
The outlet alternative under the stochastic analysis with the highest benefit-cost ratio 

(although it is not shown to be economically justified) is the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet. 

Sensitivity of No-Action Base Condition 

This sensitivity analysis performed a check assuming that no additional action would take 

place to protect infrastructure around the lake during future lake level rises. As noted in 

the “No Action” column, the “No Action” protection strategy assumption for the 

stochastic analysis resulted in higher benefit-cost ratios for all alternatives, as compared 

to the net benefits computed for the most likely base condition. The benefit-cost ratios 

are all less than 1.0, except for “Continued Infrastructure Protection.” 

The “Continued Infrastructure Protection” alternative represents implementation of 

features assumed to take place as the most likely future base condition. This shows that 

continued incremental flood protection, as has been taking place in the basin as the lake 

has risen in the past, is cost-effective. 

Hydrologic Effectiveness 

To evaluate the hydrologic effectiveness of the proposed Devils Lake management 

measures, a comparison with the existing, without-project condition is necessary. A 

variety of analyses can be done, but the most pertinent and most applicable characterization 

for a terminal lake is the lake’s elevation frequency. By comparing this relationship for the 

with- and without- project conditions, the outlet’s hydrologic effectiveness can be 

measured quantitatively. 

As shown on Figure 5-6, the without-project (base) condition has about a 0.094 

probability of exceeding elevation 1459 in the next 50 years. The two outlet alternatives 

with 480-cfs operating plans (West Bay and Pelican Lake) reduce that percentage of 

exceeding elevation 1459 in the next 50 years to slightly higher than 2 percent, with other 

alternatives having higher percentages of exceedance. 

Water Quality Considerations 

The water quality models cannot be used to directly address in-lake and downstream

water quality effects in a probabilistic sense. It was practical to run the downstream

water quality model only for a limited number of traces selected from the 10,000 

generated by the stochastic lake model. 

5-61
1446

1448

1450

1452

1454

1456

1458

1460

1462

1464

1466

100 10 1 0.1

EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY IN %

ELEV. (ft.)

w/o project

50% Upper Basin Storage

West Bay 300/450

UBS/300/450

PL300/300

PL2/480/250

PL3/480/250

WB,PL,EDL480

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

(for the stochastic analysis) 

Legend

- w/o project – Base Condition 

- 50% Upper Basin Storage – Assumes use of 50 percent of the available 

depressional area 

- West Bay 300/450 – 300-cfs outlet from the West Bay with 450-mg/l sulfate 

constraint 

- UBS 300/450 – Combination Plan 2 – Upper Basin Storage, Expanded 

Infrastructure Protection, 300-cfs outlet from West Bay with 450-mg/l sulfate 

constraint

- Pelican L 300/300 – 300-cfs outlet from Pelican Lake with 300-mg/l sulfate 

constraint 

- PL2 480/250 – 480-cfs outlet from Pelican Lake (separated from West Bay) with 

250-mg/l sulfate constraint 

- PL3 480/250 – 480-cfs outlet from Pelican Lake (separated from West Bay and 

store water higher than natural conditions) with 250-mg/l sulfate constraint 

- WB, PL, EDL 480 – Unconstrained 480-cfs outlet from Pelican Lake, West Bay, 

or East Devils Lake 

Other Environmental Effects 

The potential area of impact has been determined from hydrologic, water quality, and 

groundwater studies associated with the construction and operation of the various 

alternatives. The potential impact area is based on identified changes in the flow regime, 

water quality, and groundwater levels. 

The impact area in the upper basin is defined as the depression areas identified for 

restoration. The impact area around Devils Lake is separated by contour zones up to 

5-62
elevation 1463, which is the highest lake level attained if the lake is kept from

overflowing naturally to the Sheyenne River under the wet scenario. The impact area on 

the Sheyenne River is defined by the flooded area outline, area of water quality and flow 

effects, and area of groundwater influence (1⁄4 mile from the river). The impact area on 

the Red River is defined by the area of water quality and flow effects and the area of

groundwater influence. Although flows and changes in stage would be less on the Red 

River, the area of potential groundwater influence was still assumed to be about 1⁄4 mile. 

The environmental effects of the alternatives occur in the upper basin, around Devils 

Lake, downstream in the Sheyenne River and Red River basins, or a combination 

depending on the alternative. 

The effects of the various alternatives on the major resource areas are summarized in 

Table 5-5. Both the stochastic and scenario futures are presented in the same table for 

ease of comparison, as many of the effects are similar, differing primarily in magnitude 

and duration. 

Social Effects 

When considering the social effects of a plan to lower the level of Devils Lake, a 

comparison must be made with the baseline condition and its related social 

characteristics. The likelihood of future lake levels is difficult to assess and the social 

effects of a project will vary depending on the assumptions made about the future without 

a project in place. For instance, the social effects of an outlet will vary considerably 

depending on the assumption about the potential for overflows from Devils Lake into the 

Sheyenne River in the future. Social impacts of a project must be evaluated against the 

future conditions judged as most likely to occur without a project in place. 

Upper Basin Storage 

On the basis of analyses performed to date, upper basin storage will not meet the project 

objectives as a stand-alone project. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to consider 

it as a component of a more comprehensive plan to address the Devils Lake flooding 

problem. On the basis of hydraulic studies, upper basin storage has only a minor impact 

in reducing costs and flood damages that otherwise would occur under the withoutproject condition. This plan, however, is perceived as the solution to the Devils Lake 

flooding problem by downstream interests, who feel that the lake has been rising in 

response to increased inflows from the upper basin caused by drainage of wetlands and 

other depressional runoff storage areas. The downstream interests feel that an outlet and 

its related water quality and quantity problems should not be imposed upon them until 

upper basin storage has been tried as a solution to the rising lake problem. Landowners 

in the upper basin, on the other hand, feel that drainage is necessary in order to 

productively farm their land. They feel that additional inflows from their drainage 

practices have had little impact on increasing the lake level. 

Table 5-5: Impact Matrix for Devils Lake Study Alternatives

 

5-63
Alternative Resource

 

Devils Lake Aquatic 

Resources 

Devils Lake Basin 

Terrestrial Resources

Downstream

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Downstream

Aquatic Resources 

Biota Transfer 

Existing Conditions Rise of Devils Lake has 

benefited fishery. 

Wetlands have been 

lost and gained. 

Significant fishery in 

lake. 

The current lake level 

has resulted in the loss 

of over 1 million trees 

(over 3,000 acres). 

Terrestrial habitat has 

been lost and converted 

to aquatic habitat. 70 

Natural Heritage sites 

located in the basin. 

Downstream riparian

system and habitat 

provide good wildlife 

and natural area 

values. Riparian land 

use is predominantly

agriculture and 

natural habitat. 

Grazing and other

water use at the 

Sheyenne and Red 

Rivers. 857 Natural 

Heritage sites located 

in the Sheyenne 

basin. 72 in the Red 

basin.

Sheyenne River and 

Lake Ashtabula 

significant aquatic 

resource. Red 

River catfish. 

Risk of biota 

transfer due to 

recreational users 

and natural 

causes. Potential 

for introduction or

spread of known 

and unknown 

organisms.

Future Without - 

Stochastic Future 

Fishery in lake will 

continue to improve to 

a point. Eventually,

lake will recede and 

fishery will decline. 

Continued construction 

of levees and roads 

could affect resources. 

Infrastructure 

protection would have 

little effect on 

probability of natural 

overflow and resultant 

effects. Construction 

activities would have 

temporary effect on 

aquatic habitat such as 

turbidity. Little longterm effect on fishery. 

Wetlands, woodlands,

grasslands, and other

habitats will be 

adversely affected as 

lake fluctuates. 

Relocation would affect 

natural resources of the 

area. Previously 

developed areas would 

be reclaimed. Little 

change from No Action 

condition, which 

includes relocations. 

No effect 

downstream if lake 

does not overflow 

naturally. Less than 

10-percent chance of

natural overflow. 

Therefore, no 

appreciable change 

from existing 

conditions. 

Infrastructure 

protection would 

have no effect on 

downstream areas. 

Not much change 

expected from

current conditions. 

Less than 

10-percent chance 

of natural overflow. 

Fishery would 

maintain itself. 

Infrastructure 

protection would 

have no effect on 

downstream areas. 

Similar to existing 

conditions. Less 

than 10-percent 

chance of natural 

overflow. 

Future Without - 

Wet Scenario Future 

Fishery in lake will 

continue to improve to 

a point. Eventually,

lake will recede and 

fishery will decline. 

Continued construction 

of levees and roads 

could affect resources. 

Infrastructure 

protection would have 

little effect on 

probability of natural 

overflow and resultant 

effects. Construction 

activities would have 

temporary effect on 

aquatic habitat such as 

turbidity. Little longterm effect on fishery. 

Wetlands, woodlands,

grasslands, and other

habitats would be lost 

as lake rises to 

overflow elevation. 

Relocation would affect 

natural resources of the 

area. Previously 

developed areas would 

be reclaimed. 

Successional recovery

of habitat types as lake 

recedes. Little change 

from No Action 

condition, which 

includes relocations. 

Natural overflow 

would have 

significant adverse 

effect on downstream

resources due to 

increased inundation,

erosion, and flows. 

Infrastructure 

protection would 

have no effect on 

downstream areas. 

Significant adverse 

effect on aquatic 

resources due to 

increased flows, 

water quality 

changes, and 

erosion. Some

recovery expected 

once overflow event 

ends, but recovery

could take many

decades. 

Infrastructure 

protection would 

have no effect on 

downstream areas. 

Natural overflow 

would increase 

potential for 

transfer of any 

new or introduced 

organisms to 

downstream areas.

5-64
West Bay Outlet - 

300 cfs 

Fresh water removed 

from lake and lake level 

lowered, which could 

affect fishery. Lower 

lake levels reached 

sooner than without 

outlet. 

Outlet would lower 

lake levels about 3 feet. 

Future inundation of 

shoreline would be 

reduced. Lower lake

levels would expose 

shoreline sooner,

resulting in quicker

successional recovery

of terrestrial habitat. 

There are 6, 213, and 

82 Natural Heritage 

sites located within 

1/4 mile of Upper

Sheyenne, Lower 

Sheyenne, and Red 

River, respectively. 

Limited effects due 

to operation 

constrained by water

quality and channel 

capacity. Increased 

groundwater could 

affect composition of 

some terrestrial 

communities. 

Changes in water 

quality could have 

significant effects on 

aquatic communities.

Release constrained 

by water quality 

standards, although 

increase in levels of 

constituents. Most 

effect on aquatic 

resources in upper

Sheyenne due to 

increased flows. 

Limited effects due 

to operation 

constrained by

water quality and 

channel capacity. 

Increased 

groundwater could 

affect composition 

of some

communities. 

Changes in water 

quality and flow 

could have 

significant effects 

on aquatic 

communities. Most 

effect on aquatic 

resources in upper

Sheyenne due to 

increased flows. 

Potential for 

transfer and 

introduction of 

new species 

would increase 

due to outlet 

operation. 

Similar to future 

without 

conditions. 

Potential for 

spread of

Eurasian

watermilfoil due 

to increased 

flows.

West Bay Outlet - 

480 cfs 

Outlet would reduce the 

potential for inundation 

of new aquatic habitat 

with resultant effect on 

fish resource. Outlet 

would not totally

stabilize lake; therefore, 

some fluctuation in lake 

levels would continue. 

Fishery would decline 

sooner than under

future without 

conditions due to lower

lake levels and 

increased water quality 

constituent levels. 

More effect than 

300-cfs outlet.

Future inundation of 

shoreline would be 

reduced. Lower lake

levels would expose 

shoreline sooner,

resulting in quicker

successional recovery

of terrestrial habitat. 

Greater effect than 

300-cfs outlet.

Similar to West Bay 

300-cfs outlet. 

Significant 

downstream effects 

on community

structure due to 

degraded water

quality, increased 

flows, and increased 

shoreline erosion. 25 

Natural Heritage sites 

located within 

flooded area of 

Sheyenne River. 

Over 600 landowners

potentially affected 

within flooded area 

outline. Overbank 

flooding could 

inundate almost 

16,000 acres. 

Potential loss of 

riparian vegetation 

and shoreline 

vegetation due to 

inundation and 

erosion.

Degraded water 

quality, increased 

flows, increased 

erosion, and loss of 

riparian vegetation. 

Dramatic change in 

aquatic 

communities such 

as decline in 

invertebrate, fish, 

and mussel species, 

abundance and 

diversity.

Similar effects as 

West Bay outlet. 

Pelican Lake Outlet - 

300 cfs 

Fresher and more water 

is removed from lake 

than with West Bay 

outlet, which could 

affect fishery. Lower 

lake levels reached 

sooner than without 

outlet. 

Fresher and more water 

is removed from lake 

than with West Bay 

outlet, which could 

affect fishery. Lower 

lake levels would 

expose shoreline 

sooner, resulting in 

quicker successional 

recovery of terrestrial 

habitat. 

Similar effects as 

West Bay 300-cfs 

outlet. 

Similar effects as 

West Bay 300-cfs 

outlet. 

Similar effects as 

West Bay outlet. 

5-65
Pelican Lake Outlet - 

480 cfs 

Fresher and more water 

is removed from lake 

than with West Bay 

outlet, which could 

affect fishery. Lower 

lake levels reached 

sooner than without 

outlet. In-lake water 

quality declines due to 

removing fresh water. 

Greater effects than 

with 300-cfs Pelican 

outlet. 

Similar to West Bay 

480-cfs outlet. Future

inundation of shoreline 

would be reduced. 

Lower lake levels 

would expose shoreline 

sooner, resulting in 

quicker successional 

recovery of terrestrial 

habitat. Greater effects 

than with 300-cfs 

Pelican outlet. 

Similar effects as 

West Bay 480-cfs 

outlet. Higher flows 

on Sheyenne River

affect riparian 

vegetation and 

erosion. More

impact than with 

300-cfs outlet.

Similar effects as 

West Bay 480-cfs 

outlet. Initial flows 

better water quality 

but later outlet 

flows worse due to 

degraded Devils 

Lake quality. 

Similar effects as 

West Bay outlet. 

Pelican Lake Outlet 

Only - 300 cfs - No 

West Bay Flow (PL2 

/PL3) 

Most of the fresh

inflow is removed 

before it enters Devils 

Lake. Freshening of 

Devils Lake is 

decreased. Fishery 

could be adversely

affected. Lake reaches 

lower levels sooner and 

increases in total 

dissolved solids (TDS) 

and sulfates over

without- project 

conditions or any other

outlet. Upper basin 

lakes used for storage 

and subject to increased 

fluctuation, resulting in 

decreased aquatic 

habitat values. Lake 

Alice National Wildlife 

Refuge affected, 

requiring compatibility 

statement. 

Similar to other outlets. 

Future inundation of 

shoreline would be 

reduced. Lower lake

levels would expose 

shoreline sooner,

resulting in quicker

successional recovery

of terrestrial habitat. 

Upper basin lakes 

subject to more

fluctuation and 

resulting effects to 

habitat and wildlife 

resources. National 

Wildlife Refuge 

affected. 

There are 6, 213, and 

82 Natural Heritage 

sites located within 

1/4 mile of upper

Sheyenne, lower 

Sheyenne, and Red 

River, respectively. 

Limited effects due 

to operation 

constrained by water

quality and channel 

capacity. Increased 

groundwater could 

affect composition of 

some communities. 

Changes in water 

quality could have 

significant effects on 

aquatic communities.

Release constrained 

by water quality 

standards. Only the 

freshest water

removed from

Devils Lake and is 

similar to Sheyenne 

base condition. 

Most effect on 

aquatic resources in 

upper Sheyenne due 

to increased flows. 

Limited effects due 

to operation 

constrained by

water quality and 

channel capacity. 

Increased 

groundwater could 

affect composition 

of some

communities. 

Changes in water 

quality could have 

significant effects 

on aquatic 

communities. Most 

effect on aquatic 

resources in upper

Sheyenne due to 

increased flows. 

Similar effects as 

West Bay outlet. 

East Devils Lake

Outlet - 480 cfs 

Water quality in Devils 

Lake improved. Effect 

on fishery depends on 

amount of natural 

reproduction. Could 

affect population 

dynamics in the lakes. 

For example, may result 

in fewer big fish and 

more small fish. 

Future inundation of 

shoreline would be 

reduced. Lower lake

levels would expose 

shoreline sooner,

resulting in quicker

successional recovery

of terrestrial habitat. 

Similar impacts to 

West End 480-cfs 

outlet. 

Increased water 

quality effects over 

West end outlets. 

Upper Sheyenne 

most affected. 

Mussels affected by 

increased chloride 

levels. Loss of 

streambank cover

and increased 

erosion have an 

adverse effect on 

habitat and fishery.

Similar effects as 

West Bay outlet. 

5-66
Raise Natural Outlet Fishery in lake will 

continue to improve to 

a point. Eventually,

lake will recede and 

fishery will decline. 

Continued construction 

of levees and roads 

could affect resources.

Wetlands, woodlands,

grasslands, and other

habitats adversely

affected as lake 

fluctuates. Greater 

effects than with future 

without- project 

conditions due to 

additional lands 

inundated. Greater

effects than the future 

without-project 

conditions due to 

additional lands 

inundated.

No effect 

downstream. Not 

much change from

existing conditions. 

Not much change 

expected from

current conditions. 

Fishery will 

maintain itself. 

Similar to future 

without 

conditions.

Upper Basin Storage Upper basin storage 

would reduce runoff to 

lake, resulting in lake 

levels about 1 foot 

lower. Some fresher 

water would be retained 

in the upper basin. 

Probably minimal 

effect on fishery. 

Upper basin storage 

would reduce runoff to 

lake, resulting in lake 

levels about 1 foot 

lower. Some fresher 

water would be retained 

in upper basin. Would 

prevent inundation of 

some land areas and 

loss of habitat. Would 

modify land uses at 

storage sites. 

Similar to future 

without conditions. 

Similar to future 

without conditions. 

Similar to future 

without 

conditions.

Expanded 

Infrastructure 

Protection 

Would not affect 

probability of natural 

overflow and resultant 

effects. Construction 

activities would have 

temporary effect on 

aquatic habitat such as 

turbidity. Little longterm effect on fishery. 

Relocation would affect 

natural resources of the 

area. Previously 

developed areas would 

be reclaimed. Little 

change from “No 

Action” condition,

which includes 

relocations. 

Similar to future 

without conditions. 

Similar to future 

without conditions. 

Similar to future 

without 

conditions.

On the basis of previous attempts to voluntarily acquire runoff storage areas in the upper 

basin, this plan will be difficult and costly to implement. The value of payments to 

acquire easements for storage areas, which are based on lost productivity of the land, is 

likely to be contested by landowners. This increases the administrative costs of 

implementing this plan significantly. 

Another possible impact of this plan would be the change in land use in the upper basin 

area. Converting 30,000 to 40,000 acres of farmland to runoff storage areas reduces the 

economic base of the local economy that is already highly dependent on the agricultural 

sector. The storage areas could be farmed in dry years. But, in those years when they 

could not be farmed, the impact would be felt throughout the local economy. 

300-cfs Outlets

A 300-cfs outlet would have a beneficial impact in reducing flood prevention costs and 

residual flood damage compared to the without-project condition. Associated with this is 

the beneficial impact of fewer relocations of residential and business properties. Of the 

different outlet plans evaluated, the Pelican Lake outlet would have the greatest 

beneficial impact since its higher quality water would allow a greater volume to be 

5-67
released from Devils Lake. The East End outlet would have the lowest beneficial impact 

as it releases water of the poorest quality. The West Bay outlet would have moderate 

impacts. 

An intangible benefit of the outlet would be the initial psychological boost to the local 

economy resulting from the perception that the solution to the problem is at hand and that 

the Devils Lake community will prosper in the future as a result. However, although a 

300-cfs outlet would reduce peak lake levels under most climatic conditions, it would not 

prevent the lake from rising altogether if it is already on an upward trend and most of the 

costs and damages occurring under the without-project condition would be incurred with 

this plan in place as well. A 300-cfs outlet may generate controversy among the local 

community, as the elation initially produced by the outlet is followed by the 

disappointment of unmet expectations regarding the outlet’s effectiveness in lowering 

lake levels. 

Downstream interests may strongly oppose an outlet. This opposition has led to conflict 

with upstream neighbors who feel unfairly burdened by the lake flooding problem. 

However, due to the constrained operation of a 300-cfs outlet, actual impacts in terms of 

increased flood potential or diminished water quality would be less than an unconstrained 

operation plan, and opposition may moderate over time. In addition, although the plan 

would not keep the lake from rising altogether, it would drain a sufficient volume of 

water from Devils Lake to prevent a natural overflow under the wet scenario used in this 

analysis, another benefit to the downstream community. 

Costs are a major concern of the local community. Operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs, typically borne by the local sponsor, range from moderate to very high, depending 

on the outlet alternative. O&M costs for the west end outlets, which require pumping, 

range from $0.5 to $1.2 million per year. O&M cost estimates for an east end outlet were 

only developed for a 480-cfs outlet. A proportional estimate for a 300-cfs outlet 

indicates that the O&M costs would be approximately $30,000 per year. This is one 

reason why the East End outlet is a locally preferred alternative. Depending on the 

direction of the lake level in the future, there is the possibility that, once the outlet is built 

and the lake level drops, the outlet may not be operated. 

480-cfs Outlets

A 480-cfs outlet operated in an unconstrained manner would have the greatest beneficial 

impact in terms of damage reduction around the lake among the alternatives considered. 

In a number of conditions, it would essentially prevent the lake from rising once it begins 

operating. Confidence and optimism about the future of the Devils Lake area would be 

restored and may serve as a catalyst for community growth. At a minimum, a sense of 

relief and normalcy could return to the Devils Lake community. 

5-68
Downstream interests would bear most of the negative impacts of this plan. Flooding 

may increase, primarily on agricultural land along the Sheyenne River. Higher flows 

may exacerbate streambank erosion that may threaten farmstead structures and residences 

along the river. The added flow translates into stage increases, resulting in additional 

damage to structural property from direct flooding. Under these circumstances, flood 

easements would be purchased to compensate landowners for future expected losses to 

their properties. The potential for bearing these adverse impacts of an outlet is a source 

of controversy with downstream interests and has produced conflict with their upstream

neighbors. 

As with the 300-cfs outlets, costs for the 480-cfs outlets are a major concern of the local 

community. O&M costs for the 480-cfs East End outlet, which includes a gravity outlet, 

are estimated to be $35,000 annually, while those for the west end outlets range from

$0.8 to $2.0 million per year. This, again, is one reason why the East End outlet is a 

locally preferred alternative. 

The most significant adverse impact would be impaired water quality and the related 

social and environmental ramifications. Costs would increase significantly to either treat 

the river water or obtain a supply of water from another source. Those with a strong 

attachment to the river would undoubtedly experience a sense of loss due to the 

environmental degradation of the river. 

Expanded Infrastructure Protection

This plan has relatively minor beneficial impacts associated with it. These involve some

saving of road raise costs and reduction of flood damage to lands and other properties 

compared with the without-project condition. However, because of the minor flood 

damage reduction potential of this plan, the Devils Lake area residents would view this 

plan as an ineffective solution to their flooding problem. 

Raise Natural Outlet

By preventing a natural overflow, this plan would raise the lake level higher than the 

without-project condition for any future condition when the lake reaches elevation 1459 

or higher. By inducing flooding above what would occur under the without-project 

condition, this plan would impose an additional burden upon the Devils Lake region and 

would meet strong opposition from the local community. The plan would induce 

additional damage for which landowners adjacent to the lake would have to be 

compensated. Additional costs for raising roads and dikes and other damage reduction 

measures would also be incurred. That this project would be implemented to prevent a 

natural overflow and benefit downstream interests at the expense of Devils Lake 

residents may cause divisiveness between the two areas. 

5-69
Cultural Effects 

Since the probability of a natural overflow to the Sheyenne River is relatively low (less 

than 10 percent), a natural overflow is not assumed to be part of the most likely future. 

Given this, erosion of archeological sites along the Sheyenne River will continue as at 

present. Cultural resources sites on the shorelines of Devils Lake below elevation 

1447 feet have already been inundated or otherwise adversely affected by the prolonged 

flooding, and this will continue until the lake level drops. Sites on the Devils Lake 

shoreline at whatever level the lake is at would potentially be subject to wave-caused 

erosion. Sites along the shoreline of Stump Lakes will be inundated and/or eroded if the 

overflow from East Devils Lake continues. 

SCENARIO-BASED ANALYSIS – WET FUTURE 

As discussed earlier, besides the stochastic analysis, alternatives were also evaluated with 

a scenario-based analysis (with initial evaluation based on a wet future and two other 

sensitivity evaluations based on more moderate futures). The wet future results are based 

on a trace that repeats the climatic and hydrologic conditions for the seven highest inflow 

years in recent history (1993-1999) for three cycles and then assumes climatic and 

hydrologic conditions similar to 1980-1999 and then 1980 to 1990 to complete a 50-year 

period. The more moderate future scenarios are based on a representative trace (of the 

set of 10,000) that reaches the defined lake levels (1455 and 1450). 

Since the scenario-based approach does not consider probabilities of future flooding 

events, this approach to economic analysis has limited application to the alternatives 

screening process. This approach can provide information regarding the economic 

consequences of the wet future as defined above for the area around Devils Lake and 

downstream along the Sheyenne River and Red River of the North. Like the stochastic 

analysis, the benefit-cost ratio and net benefits have been calculated for each alternative 

to rank them under the wet future scenario analysis. Based on the assumption of lake 

level rise and eventual natural overflow intrinsic with the wet future scenario, results 

from this analysis are different from those of the probability-based analysis. 

A cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives compared against various scenarios of future 

without-project conditions was used to preliminarily select an alternative for design. 

Table 5-6 summarizes key indicators used in the evaluation of alternatives; namely, costeffectiveness, lake stage effectiveness, and downstream water quality impacts. 

Cost-effectiveness 

With all benefits and costs considered, every alternative appears cost-effective using the 

wet future scenario approach to the economic analysis, except for the Expanded 

Infrastructure Protection Plan and the Natural Outlet Raise alternative. Upper Basin 

Storage and Combination Plan 1, although cost-effective under this scenario, have 

5-70
Table 5-6: Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost-Effectiveness, Lake 

Effectiveness, and Water Quality – Wet Future Scenario 

 Wet Future Scenario [2]

Total Costs [1] Likely Future No Action Highest WQ [3] WQ [4] WQ [5]

 ($million) "Annl.Net Ben." "BCR" "BCR" Lake Level

Alternatives within the Basin ($000's)

Upper Basin Stor.-50% (UBS) $40 $541 1.20 1.39 1460 0 4 8

Expand.Infrastr.Prot. (EIP) $61 $238 1.06 0.10 1460 0 4 8

Raise Natural Outlet $312 -$3,526 0.83 2.67 1462 0 4 8

Outlet Alternatives

West Bay Outlet (300 cfs) $96 $13,341 3.09 2.45 1457 0 27 20

 (Peterson Coulee)

West Bay Outlet (480 cfs) $183 $16,639 2.37 3.35 1452 3 44 33

 (Peterson Coulee)

Pelican Lake Outlet (300 cfs) $125 $13,564 2.51 2.47 1457 0 11 12

Pelican Lake Outlet (480 cfs) $220 $15,530 2.06 2.85 1452 0 21 17

Pel.Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL2 $242 $6,132 1.38 1.48 1455 0 7 14

Pel.Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL3 $341 $5,051 1.22 1.28 1454 0 8 14

East End Outlet $148 $18,315 2.85 4.07 1452 58 59 48

Combination Alternatives

Combination 1 (UBS, EIP) $97 $822 1.13 0.63 1460 0 4 8

Combin. 2 (UBS, EIP, Peterson/300) $167 $14,324 2.28 2.14 1456 0 27 20

Continued Infrastr. Protection $585 1.88 1460 0 4 8

 (this is the "likely future" base 

 condition, as measured against

 no action)

Notes:

 [1] - Total costs are present worth of all costs, including annual Operation and Maintenance

 [2] - There are also economic analyses conducted for more moderate lake levels (1450 and 1455 max. stage),

 but are not summarized here.

 [3] - Downstream water quality, as represented by percentage of time Sulfate standard of 450 mg/L 

 is exceeded at Valley City, ND (years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario) 

 [4] - Downstream water quality, as represented by percentage of time TDS standard of 500 mg/L

 is exceeded at Halstad, MN (years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario)

 [5] - Downstream water quality, as represented by percentage of time TDS objective of 500 mg/L

 is exceeded at Emerson, MB (years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario)

 [6] - An alternative is evaluated under the wet future scenario approach that was not evaluated under the stochastic 

 approach, the Natural Outlet Raise plan. 

 [7] - Benefits and costs expressed on an “average annual” basis for a specific scenario assume that the scenario has a 100-percent chance of 

 occurring. This differs from the standard definition of “average annual” which is calculated by assigning probabilities of a range of scenarios 

 as weights in computing expected value of damages, costs, and benefits. Therefore, average annual benefits and costs in scenario context 

 should not be considered the true expected value of benefits and costs for a project. 

relatively low benefit-cost ratios (1.20 and 1.13, respectively) and net benefits. The plans 

with the highest net benefits are the outlet plans. Of these, the 480-cfs plans have higher 

net benefits than their 300-cfs counterparts. Because of higher costs, though, their 

benefit-cost ratios are somewhat lower. The plan with the greatest net benefits under the 

wet future scenario is the East Devils Lake 480-cfs outlet. Again, the results of this 

analysis of the wet future scenario are significantly different from the results of the 

5-71
stochastic analysis due primarily to the assumed certainty of the lake rising to the 

overtopping elevation and naturally overflowing into the Sheyenne River. 

Sensitivity of No-Action Base Condition 

This sensitivity analysis performed a check assuming no additional action would take 

place to protect infrastructure around the lake during future lake levels. The costeffectiveness of most of the outlet alternatives goes up slightly with this varied base 

condition. A notable conclusion may relate to the cost-effectiveness of the infrastructure 

within the basin. The Continued Infrastructure Protection plan (which is implementation 

of the most likely future) shows a benefit-cost ratio of 1.88. In comparison of 

alternatives to a “No Action” base condition, the “Continued Infrastructure Protection” 

alternative has a positive annual net benefit for both the stochastic and wet future 

scenario approach. This signifies that the implementation of the Continued Infrastructure 

Protection within the basin is economically justified, and may in fact represent the most 

economically defensible approach to flood damage management at the lake. The wetter 

the future, the more the multiple types of projects are required in the basin to relieve the 

flooding. 

Hydrologic Considerations 

The “Highest Lake Level” column of Table 5-6 can be further understood from

Figure 5-7, which shows the elevation reduction for each alternative compared with 

existing conditions for the wet future. The highest lake level for the baseline condition is 

approximately elevation 1460. The outlet plans that are most effective in reducing the 

peak lake level for a wet future scenario are those with a 480-cfs unconstrained operating 

plan, which show a peak lake level of about elevation 1452. This may be further reduced 

(by approximately 1⁄2 foot) if supplemented with an Upper Basin Storage feature. 

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

1460

1465

2000 200 5 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Year

Elevatio

n (ft. a

sl)

Base

UBS

WB300/450

PL2/480/250

UBS/300/450

PL300/450

PL3/480/250

WB,PL,EDL480

5-72
Figure 5-7: Devils Lake Elevation, Wet Future 

Water Quality Considerations 

The State of North Dakota has classified the Sheyenne River as a Class 1A stream and 

the Red River as a Class 1 stream, which establishes its designated uses as suitable for 

aquatic life, boating and swimming, and municipal water supply use subject to treatment 

by softening to meet chemical drinking water requirements. To protect those designated 

uses and to evaluate the status of waters with respect to use attainment, North Dakota has 

established numerical and narrative water quality standards and an antidegradation 

implementation procedure. 

The numerical and narrative standards identify the chemical concentration values or other 

physical measures or limits that would have to be met pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Water Act (FCWA) Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, and Section 402 National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process. Tables 5-7 and 5-8 list the 

numerical standards applicable to Class 1 and 1A streams. 

Table 5-7: State of North Dakota Water Quality Standards for the Red River of the 

North (Class 1) 

Substance/Condition Standard Method of

Analysis 

Effect of Outlet, P. 

Lake, 300 cfs, 

constrained 

Ammonia (as N) (Formula, see 

rules) 

Not modeled No prediction 

Barium (Total) No analysis, No 

data 

Boron (Total) 0.75 mg/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Chlorides (Total) 100 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance 

Chlorine Residual 0.011 mg/l Not modeled No prediction 

Dissolved Oxygen Not <5 mg/l HEC-5Q No exceedance 

Fecal Coliform 200 per 100 ml No analysis No prediction 

Nitrates (N) 1.0 mg/l (see 

rules) 

HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance 

pH 7.0 – 9.0 HEC-5Q No exceedance 

Phenols (Total) 0.1 mg/l No analysis No prediction 

Phosphorus (Total) 0.1 mg/l (see 

rules) 

HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance 

Sodium 50% of Tot. 

Cations 

HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance 

Sulfates (Total) 250 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance 

Temperature (see rules) HEC-5Q No change 

Comb. Radium 226/228 (see rules) No prediction 

5-73
Gr. alpha particle activity (see rules) No prediction 

Table 5-8: State of North Dakota Water Quality Standards for the Sheyenne River 

(Class 1A. All criteria same as for Class 1 except the following) 

Substance/Condition Standard Method of

Analysis 

Effect of Outlet, P. 

Lake, 300 cfs, 

constrained 

Chlorides (Total) 175 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

No exceedance

Sodium 60% of Tot. 

Cations 

HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance

Sulfates (Total) 450 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

 No exceedance

The antidegradation rule provides for oversight in the case where a new or expanded 

source of pollutants, even while meeting numerical standards, would cause a significant 

permanent effect on the quality and beneficial uses of the affected waters. A determination of “significant effect” would be that the ambient quality of any parameter would be 

degraded by more than 15 percent, or that the available assimilative capacity would be 

reduced by more than 15 percent, or that any permitted pollutant loading would be 

increased by 15 percent. The operator of a Devils Lake outlet would be required to 

obtain an NPDES permit from the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH). The 

antidegradation review is an important part of the NPDES permitting process. 

Under the FCWA, the NDDH cannot issue an NPDES permit for an activity that causes 

exceedance of numerical State water quality standards, including the standards of an 

adjoining or downstream State whose waters would be affected by the activity, without 

obtaining variances. The NDDH can permit a variance to the water quality standards of 

an affected segment within its jurisdiction when by reason of substantial and widespread 

economic and social impacts the strict enforcement of water quality criteria is not 

feasible. A variance can be granted only after fulfillment of public participation 

requirements and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. The EPA has 

indicated in correspondence that it was confident that the State of North Dakota would 

ensure that no NPDES permit would be issued if it would cause a violation of North 

Dakota or Minnesota water quality standards. The EPA has the authority to intervene to 

ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected states. 

The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) provides that “... the waters herein defined as 

boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either 

side to the injury of health or property of the other.” (BWT – Article IV) In May 1969, 

the United States and Canada adopted specific water quality objectives recommended by 

the International Joint Commission (IJC). The IJC was established by the BWT – 

Article VII and given jurisdiction by BWT - Article VIII over matters dealing with 

BWT – Article IV. Those objectives are: 

5-74
TDS 500 mg/l (maximum) 

Sulfate 250 mg/l (maximum) 

Chloride 100 mg/l (maximum) 

Dissolved oxygen 5.0 mg/l (minimum) 

Fecal coliform 200 per 100 ml (maximum) 

The Province of Manitoba has a policy to maintain, enhance, and protect the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of all surface waters. Manitoba has formulated surface 

water quality objectives that define the minimum levels of quality required to protect 

water uses. The surface water quality objectives are designated concentrations of 

constituents that, when not exceeded, will protect an organism, a community of 

organisms, a prescribed water use, or a designated multiple water use with an adequate 

degree of safety. Manitoba specifies that the objectives would be interpreted as 

maximum acceptable concentrations not to be exceeded at any time in any place, except 

where otherwise specified (i.e., low flow conditions, mixing zones). A technical draft of 

the objectives and guidelines report is available from Manitoba Conservation on the 

Internet. One of the most prominent emerging issues is eutrophication, especially of 

Lake Winnipeg. The concerns over eutrophication have prompted an intensive ongoing 

effort to develop a nutrient management strategy for southern Manitoba. Any activity in 

the U.S. portion of the Red River of the North basin that would increase the nutrient load 

to the system would further complicate management initiatives that are already difficult 

and costly to implement. 

Water quality modeling was performed for the continued wet cycle scenario to compute the 

downstream routing of Devils Lake outlet water affecting water quality and flow in the 

Sheyenne River, the Lake Ashtabula reservoir, and the Red River of the North from the 

Sheyenne River confluence to the Canadian boundary at Emerson, Manitoba. The model 

generated daily flow and concentration data for the 50-year-long operating scenario so that 

effects at any of several hundred downstream locations could be compared with the nooutlet base condition. The data were used to evaluate the impact of outlet operations with 

respect to regulatory compliance parameters and nutrients. The data were also used to 

evaluate mitigation costs in the downstream water users study, potential effects on aquatic 

life, and potential effects on soil salinity (see other sections). In this section, discussion of 

downstream water quality effects focuses primarily on sulfate and TDS. 

In-Lake Water Quality Effects 

Figure 5-8 shows the recent historical and expected changes in levels of TDS in Main 

Bay of Devils Lake, based on the wet future scenario. Historically, the TDS levels 

exceeded concentrations of 4,000 mg/l prior to 1992. As the lake level increased more 

rapidly beginning in 1993, the water freshened to the present concentration of about 

1,400 mg/l. With the wet future assumption, the base condition would continue dropping 

to levels of approximately 1,000 mg/l and then rise to about 1,500 mg/l over the next 

50 years. All of the outlet configurations, except the East Devils Lake outlet, cause TDS 

levels to increase relative to the base condition. Pelican Lake outlet operations would 

5-75
 Wet Scenario - In Lake Water Quality - Main Bay

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

2028

2032

2036

2040

2044

2048

TD

S (

mg/l)

Base PL300 PL480 EDL480 300WB 480WB

Figure 5-8: TDS Levels in Main Bay of Devils Lake, Wet Future Scenario 

cause increases of about 700 mg/l over the baseline; however, these levels are still lower 

than those prior to 1993. Similar effects would be seen in East Bay and East Devils 

Lake. 

Downstream Water Quality Impacts 

The following information about downstream water quality effects refers primarily to 

expected changes in chemical concentrations relative to North Dakota and Minnesota 

numerical water quality standards, the IJC boundary waters objectives, and North Dakota 

antidegradation criteria. It is recognized that all three jurisdictions also employ nonnumerical or “narrative” standards that generally provide protection against activities that 

would in any way substantially degrade designated beneficial uses of the waters. This 

analysis addresses narrative standards in the context of North Dakota’s antidegradation 

(15-percent change) criteria. Tables 5-7 to 5-10 list the water quality parameters, specific 

limits, method of analysis, and findings of effect for the Pelican Lake (300-cfs 

constrained, 450-mg/l sulfate) outlet alternative. The methods of analysis included 

HEC-5Q model simulations and observation of recent Devils Lake monitoring data. 

Predictions based on the monitoring data are not quantitative but assert that if maximum

concentrations in West Bay of Devils Lake are less than the standards, then outlet 

operations could not cause exceedances. Several of the parameters were found to exceed 

5-76
the 15-percent antidegradation limit without exceeding the numerical standards. The 

only 

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

North (Class 2A, 1B, 3B) 

Substance/Condition Standard Method of

Analysis 

Effect of Outlet, P. 

Lake, 300 cfs, 

constrained 

Ammonia None No analysis No prediction 

Asbestos, fibers 7.0e+06 No analysis No prediction 

Bicarbonates 5 meq/l No analysis No prediction 

Chloride 100 mg/l HEC-5Q No exceedance 

Chlorine tot. resid. 38 ug/l No analysis No prediction 

Color, Pt-Co units 15 No analysis No prediction 

Cyanide, free 45 ug/l No analysis No prediction 

Fluoride 2 mg/l No analysis No prediction 

Foaming agents 500 ug/l No analysis No prediction 

Hardness, as CaCO3 250 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

Exceedance of 

Standard

Nitrate, as N 10 mg/l No analysis No prediction 

Nitrite, as N 1 mg/l No analysis No prediction 

Nitrate + Nitrite as N 10 mg/l HEC-5Q No exceedance 

Odor, TON 3 No analysis No prediction 

Oil 10000 ug/l No analysis No prediction 

PH 6.0 – 9.0 HEC-5Q No exceedance 

Sulfate 250 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

No exceedance

Temperature No increase HEC-5Q No exceedance 

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/l HEC-5Q Elevated >15%

Exceedance of 

Standard

Turbidity, NTU units 1-5 No analysis No prediction 

Aluminum 50 – 200 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Antimony 6 ug/l No data No prediction 

Arsenic 50 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Barium 2000 ug/l No data No prediction 

Beryllium 4 ug/l No data No prediction 

Cadmium 5 ug/l No data No prediction 

Chromium +6 32 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Chromium total 100 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Cobalt 872 ug/l No data No prediction 

5-77
Copper 1000 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Iron 300 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Manganese 50 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Mercury 2 ug/l USGS Recon. 

Survey 2001 

INCREASED 

LOAD 

Nickel 100 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Selenium 40 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Silver 100 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Thallium 2 ug/l No data No prediction 

Zinc 5000 ug/l Ambient D.L. 

value <stnd 

No exceedance 

Numerous organic 

substances 

See rules No data No prediction 

Table 5-10: International Joint Commission Boundary Waters 

Water Quality Objectives, Red River of the North 

Substance/Condition Objective Method of

Analysis 

Effect of Outlet, P. 

Lake, 300 cfs, 

constrained 

Fecal coliform 200 colonies/100 ml No data No prediction 

Chloride 100 mg/l HEC-5Q No Exceedance 

Sulfate 250 mg/l HEC-5Q No Exceedance 

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/l HEC-5Q EXCEEDANCE 

Dissolved Oxygen Not <5 mg/l HEC-5Q No Exceedance 

numerical standards found to be exceeded were total dissolved solids (TDS) and total 

hardness on the Red River of the North (Minnesota standards) and TDS for the 

international objectives. Expanded discussion of selected parameters follows. 

Summary of Water Quality Effects 

The following summary of the effects of outlet operations under the continued wet cycle 

describes the downstream effects in terms of the amount of time during the first 10 years 

of operation that the sulfate or TDS standards would be exceeded. The data cited are 

from Tables 5-11 through 5-13 and Figures 5-9 through 5-11. More comprehensive 

concentration exceedance information is presented in Appendix A, including exceedance 

of concentrations higher and lower than the regulatory limits and for the moderate and 

dry future scenarios. The 10-year time frame was chosen for the concentration 

5-78
exceedance analysis because it establishes a statistical basis for comparing the effects of 

all of the 

5-79
Table 5-11: Water Quality Effects 

Sulfate - Percent of Time Exceeding 250 mg/l 

During First 10 Years (2005 – 2014) 

Sheyenne River Red River of the North 

Scenario Cooperstown Valley 

City 

Kindred Halstad Grand

Forks 

Emerson 

WET 

BASELINE 

8 2 5 0 0 0

Wet 300 PL 14 13 2 0 0 0

Wet 480 PL 29 34 18 0 0 0

Wet 300 WB 57 55 41 0 0 0

Wet 480 WB 60 73 64 1 0 0

Wet 480 EDL 64 84 78 18 2 2

Table 5-12: Water Quality Effects 

TDS - Percent of Time Exceeding 500 mg/l 

During First 10 Years (2005 – 2014) 

Sheyenne River Red River of the North 

Scenario Cooperstown Valley 

City 

Kindred Halstad Grand

Forks 

Emerson 

WET 

BASELINE 

82 52 73 4 0 8

Wet 300 PL 86 77 77 11 0 12

Wet 480 PL 87 84 80 21 0 17

Wet 300 WB 87 88 85 27 1 20

Wet 480 WB 87 90 88 44 8 33

Wet 480 EDL 88 92 91 59 29 48

Table 5-13: Water Quality Effects 

Sulfate - Percent of Time Exceeding 450 mg/l 

During First 10 Years (2005 – 2014) 

Sheyenne River Red River of the North 

Scenario Cooperstown Valley 

City 

Kindred Halstad Grand

Forks 

Emerson 

WET 

BASELINE 

0 0 0 0 0 0

Wet 300 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wet 480 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wet 300 WB 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wet 480 WB 2 3 0 0 0 0

Wet 480 EDL 51 58 34 0 0 0

5-80
Wet Future - Sheyenne River at Valley City

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

200520052006200620072007200820082009200920102010201120112012201220132013201420142015

S

ulfate (

m

g/l)

WB480 WB300 BASE PL300

Figure 5-9: Sulfate Effects – Sheyenne River at Valley City, Wet Future 

Wet Future - Red River at Halstad

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

200520052006200620072007200820082009200920102010201120112012201220132013201420142015

TD

S (

mg/l)

WB480 WB300 PL300 BASE

Figure 5-10: TDS Effects – Red River at Halstad, Wet Future 

Wet Future - Red River at Emerson

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

200520052006200620072007200820082009200920102010201120112012201220132013201420142015

TD

S (

mg/l)

WB480 WB300 PL300 BASE

Figure 5-11: TDS Effects – Red River at Emerson, Wet Future 

5-81
outlet scenarios, including the moderate and dry future scenarios. The effect of the 

uncontrolled overflow scenario is not included in the tables because the effect of the spill 

does not occur in the same 10-year time frame. 

From the standpoint of the State of North Dakota’s antidegradation implementation 

procedure, a determination of “significant effect” could be made with respect to many 

chemical parameters whose concentrations would remain well below the limits assigned 

by the standards even in the most benign operational scenarios. For example, during a 

typical operational period with a Pelican Lake outlet in the wet scenario, the increase in 

chloride concentrations would range between 100 percent and 600 percent over the 

baseline in the upper Sheyenne River without exceeding the standard of 100 mg/l. 

Similarly, the concentration increase and loading increase of many other parameters 

could exceed the 15-percent limit established by the antidegradation rules by more than 

an order of magnitude. Any finding of “significant effect” would trigger a review 

process at the end of which the North Dakota Department of Health would make a final 

decision to allow or disallow the water quality change based on a determination of

necessity to accommodate important economic or social development. In either case, 

beneficial uses must be protected. 

300 cfs Constrained (450 mg/l sulfate and 600 cfs) – The outlet would operate 

mostly unconstrained by the sulfate limitation because of the abundance of relatively 

fresh water at the west end of the lake. The 450-mg/l sulfate standard on the Sheyenne 

River would not be exceeded, but the ambient concentration would be sustained at levels 

above 250 mg/l for more than half of the time. With West Bay operations, the TDS 

standard on the Red River near Halstad, Minnesota, would be exceeded 27 percent of the 

time (base condition 4 percent). The international objective for TDS would be exceeded 

20 percent of the time (base condition 8 percent). With Pelican Lake outlet operations, 

the sulfate concentration at Valley City would be sustained at or above 250 mg/l 13 

percent of the time, the TDS standard on the Red River near Halstad would be exceeded 

11 percent of the time, and the international objective for TDS would be exceeded 12 

percent of the time. 

480 cfs Unconstrained – Operation from West Bay would exceed the North 

Dakota sulfate standard for the Sheyenne River only 3 percent of the time, but the 

ambient concentration at Valley City would be sustained at levels above 250 mg/l for 

more than 70 percent of the time. The TDS standards at Halstad and Emerson would be 

exceeded 44 percent (4 percent base) and 33 percent (8 percent base) of the time, 

respectively. Operations from East Devils Lake would cause excess concentrations at 

Halstad and Emerson for 59 percent and 48 percent of the time, respectively. With 

Pelican Lake outlet operations, the sulfate concentration at Valley City would be 

sustained at or above 250 mg/l 34 percent of the time, the TDS standard on the Red River 

near Halstad would be exceeded 21 percent of the time, and the international objective 

for TDS would be exceeded 12 percent of the time. 

Nutrient Loading Effects 

5-82
Devils Lake outlet operations would introduce a new source of plant nutrients 

(phosphorus and nitrogen) into the Sheyenne River and Red River of the North, 

potentially affecting the productivity and abundance of algae and aquatic plants in 

downstream environments. The assessment of potential specific nutrient effects from

Devils Lake outlet operations is a more complex problem than the assessment of 

dissolved solids issues for two reasons: 1) nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen 

should not be assumed to be non-reactive; and 2) there is seldom a simple direct 

relationship between concentration and effect. The nutrient loading effects may also be 

dependent on other outlet operations physical variables such as increased flow, velocity, 

reduced travel time, channel erosion, reduced hydraulic residence time (in reservoirs), 

and turbidity (affecting light penetration necessary for photosynthesis). More 

sophisticated aquatic models have the capability of integrating these and many other 

relationships such as primary consumption, competition, predator-prey, and other 

processes, such as recovery of perturbed or destabilized communities (ecological 

succession). 

The HEC-5Q water quality model of the Sheyenne River and the Red River of the North 

was used to estimate downstream ambient conditions and loadings of phosphorus based 

on materials routing that included hydraulic routing. It also included a general 

representation of the major physical and biological pathways that nutrients travel. For 

example, the model grows, reproduces, kills, and decomposes planktonic and benthic 

algae in the rivers and in Lake Ashtabula. It does not, however, directly predict algae 

blooms or other nuisance aquatic plant problems. Without knowledge of critical sitespecific and time-variable conditions, the value of estimated concentration load data is 

limited, but it may be useful in judging the significance of the relative change. For 

example, an increase in the concentration of phosphorus was known to be or suspected to 

be limiting plant growth in the base condition. Similarly, an increase in phosphorus load 

might be considered significant if a downstream lake or reservoir was known or thought 

to be experiencing accelerating eutrophication. 

With the exceptions of sulfate, TDS, and the associated “conservative” constituents, 

water quality in Devils Lake was not modeled. For the purpose of loading the HEC-5Q 

nutrient model, Devils Lake nutrient concentrations and other variables were assigned as 

constants based on the medians or means of recent monitoring data. Concentrations for 

total phosphorus and nitrate nitrogen, representing the Devils Lake outlet tributary to the 

Sheyenne River, are 0.29 mg/l and 0.045 mg/l, respectively. Monitoring data indicate 

that, unlike TDS and sulfate, these variables behave independently of lake level changes 

and uniformly throughout the lake chain. 

The State of North Dakota water quality standards for class 1 and 1A streams (effective 

June 2001) identify “interim guideline limits” for total phosphorus and nitrogen subject 

to unique or site-specific stream characteristics that may contribute to excessive plant 

growth or eutrophication. The interim guideline for total phosphorus on the Sheyenne 

River is 0.1 mg/l and for nitrates is 1.0 mg/l. Historic monitoring data indicate that the 

phosphorus guideline is rarely met and is often exceeded by a large margin. The nitrogen 

guideline is rarely exceeded. 

5-83
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and its accompanying regulations (40 

C.F.R. Section 103.7) each state is required to identify lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that 

are considered to be water quality limited and require waste load allocation analysis or 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determinations. The State of North Dakota’s 

TMDL list, submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in April 1998, identified 

all reaches of the Sheyenne River as use-impaired for aquatic life due to nutrients, 

sediment, habitat, and bacteria. Lake Ashtabula and the river reach from Baldhill Dam to 

the Barnes County line were prioritized as “High” and “Targeted” [for TMDL]. 

In the base condition, HEC-5Q simulation for the upper Sheyenne River (Figure 5-12) 

interim guideline limit for total phosphorus is exceeded 100 percent of the time. The 

with-outlet simulation indicates that phosphorus concentrations would be sustained at 

levels from 10 to 100 percent higher than the baseline condition and generally higher 

than 0.25 mg/l during operational periods. The increased phosphorus concentration 

would exceed the North Dakota antidegradation significance threshold of 15 percent, at 

which the antidegradation review process would generally, but “not necessarily” 

(according to communication with the North Dakota Department of Health) be invoked. 

The simulations indicate that outlet operations would not increase nitrogen 

concentrations downstream and would sometimes reduce ambient nitrogen (see Appendix 

A). 

Figure 5-12. Phosphorus Concentrations in Upper Sheyenne River (at 

Cooperstown) With and Without Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet 

5-84
The annual phosphorus load to Lake Ashtabula would increase by about 40 metric tons 

per year (Figure 5-13) during the first 10 years of operation, which is variably a 60- to 

100-percent increase over the base condition. These numbers could similarly invoke an 

antidegradation review based on the 15-percent loading threshold, but the issues would 

be the same for the entire Sheyenne River and would probably not be a separate process. 

The HEC-5Q model of Lake Ashtabula indicates that there would be very little response 

of algae to the increased phosphorus load because the lake is already well nourished and 

the concentration of phosphorus during the summer does not change much. It is 

important to consider that the very high increased phosphorus load would be 

accompanied by a proportionately high water load with its attendant assimilative capacity 

and effective shortening of the summer residence time in the pool. In other words, much 

of the phosphorus, and whatever plankton it nourished, might not reside long enough in 

the pool to contribute eutrophication effects. 

On the Sheyenne River downstream of Lake Ashtabula, the phosphorus concentration 

would increase during mid- to late summer and decrease slightly during the winter and 

spring (Figure 5-14). Some of the variability downstream of Lake Ashtabula would be 

due to a phase shift of the hydraulic cycle caused by increased flow during the operating 

season. That is why the with-outlet concentration in the simulations is sometimes less 

than the base condition and sometimes greater than can be accounted for directly by 

phosphorus from Devils Lake. Nitrogen concentrations would remain below the base 

condition. 

Sheyenne River at Cooperstown

Wet Scenario

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

T

P

h

o

s L

oad (

metric t

o

n

s)

Base Pel300

Figure 5-13: Phosphorus Loads to Lake Ashtabula 

5-85
Figure 5-14: Phosphorus Concentrations below Lake Ashtabula (at Kindred) 

With and Without Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet

On the Red River of the North at Halstad, the ambient phosphorus concentration would 

remain at or below the baseline condition (Figure 5-15) because the increased flow of the 

Sheyenne River, even with its Devils Lake phosphorus load, would dilute the Red River 

solution. The model indicates that most of the increased load from Devils Lake shows up 

on the Red River at Halstad (about 40 metric tons/year) and amounts to about a 3.5-percent 

increase over the base condition load during the first 10 years (see Appendix A). 

On the Red River of the North at Emerson, the change in concentration of phosphorus is 

negligible and imperceptible in the plots (See Appendix A). The model accounts for 

most of the 40 metric tons/year coming out of Devils Lake. At Emerson, it amounts to a 

2.1-percent increase over the base condition during the first 10 years (Figure 5-16). 

Presently, according to a U.S. Geological Survey estimate, the U.S. portion of the Red 

River of the North basin contributes about 35 percent of the average annual phosphorus 

load to Lake Winnipeg (Stoner, J.D., Lorenz, D.L., Goldstein, R.M., Brigham, M.E., and 

Cowdery, T.K., 1998 Water Quality in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota, 1992-95: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1169, on 

line at URL:http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1169, updated April 21, 1998). Many 

Canadians fear that the ecology of Lake Winnipeg is at risk due to various major changes 

in human activity over the past 30 years that have increased nutrient loading and may be 

changing the lake’s nutrient carrying capacity and accelerating eutrophication. Those 

activities include different agricultural practices, expansion of livestock and food 

5-86
processing industries, increases in human populations, and large-scale hydroelectric 

development 

Figure 5-15: Phosphorus Concentrations on the Red River at Halstad 

With and Without a Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet 

Red River at Emerson

Wet Scenario

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

TP

h

o

s Lo

a

d (

m

etric t

o

n

s)

Base Pel300

Figure 5-16: Phosphorus Loadings on the Red River at Emerson 

5-87
With and Without Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet

that has disrupted normal patterns of flow and sediment transport, affecting light 

penetration and favoring algae and nuisance aquatic plant growth. One of the most 

challenging aspects of the Canadian management strategy planning is sorting out specific 

cause and effect terms (Manitoba Conservation, 2000, Development of a Nutrient 

Management Strategy for Surface Waters in Southern Manitoba, Information Bulletin 

2000 – 02E, on line at 

<URL:http://www.gov.mb.ca/environ/prgareas/water/nutrmgt.pdf). A Devils Lake outlet 

could further complicate that problem. 

Hardness Effects 

Hardness is not a specific substance but a term commonly used in water treatment 

technology to express the amount and activity of polyvalent metallic ions, especially 

calcium and magnesium, that affect lathering charactistics of soap and rates of scale 

formation in water heaters and boilers. Measures of hardness, usually expressed as the 

equivalent concentration as calcium carbonate (CaCO3), are useful for calculating lime 

and soda dosages required to achieve “softening” objectives. Waters with hardness in the 

range of 150 to 300 mg/l as CaCO3 are generally considered to be “hard.” Waters with 

hardness >300 are considered to be “very hard.” 

Predictions of total hardness, generated by the HEC-5Q model, were used in the 

Downstream Water Users Study (presented elsewhere in this report) to estimate increased 

municipal and industrial water treatment expenses and mitigation costs that might be 

associated with Devils Lake outlet operations. 

The State of North Dakota has not established numerical standards for hardness for the 

Sheyenne River and the Red River of the North. The State of Minnesota’s hardness 

standard for the Red River of the North is 250 mg/l as CaCO3. Monitoring data (USGS) 

during the period of record 1961-1983 at Halstad indicate that the standard was exceeded 

in more than 50 percent of observations. The HEC-5Q model simulations also indicate 

exceedance of the standard most of the time in the base condition. Devils Lake outlet 

operations would add to the magnitude of those exceedances except during the episodes 

of natural overflow in the wet scenario (Figure 5-17). Figures 5-18 through 5-20 

describe the relative conditions during the first few years under the Moderate 1455 

scenario. The marginal effects in the wet scenario (not shown) are less severe. 

Sodium Effects 

The State of North Dakota’s water quality standards for sodium on the Sheyenne River 

and the Red River of the North are 60 percent and 50 percent (sodium as a proportion of 

total cations), respectively. The State of Minnesota’s standard for the Red River is 

60 percent. The standards for percent sodium are intended to protect agricultural 

beneficial uses of water where water is used for irrigation. The amount of sodium

relative to other ions present can be important because a high percentage of sodium in 

5-88
certain types of soils can cause soil conditions adverse to plant growth. Predictions of 

percent sodium and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), another parameter relevant to 

5-89
Figure 5-17: Red River at Halstad, Wet Scenario Including Devils Lake Overflow

Figure 5-18: Red River at Halstad, Moderate 1455 Scenario 

5-90
Figure 5-19: Red River at Grand Forks, Moderate 1455 Scenario 

Figure 5-20: Red River at Emerson, Moderate 1455 Scenario 

5-91
irrigation use, were calculated in a spreadsheet based on TDS and relative volumes (of 

water) predictions from the HEC-5Q model in combination with reach-specific relative 

proportions of major ions data from long-term historic monitoring. The predictions of 

percent sodium and SAR were used in the Soil Salinity Study [findings presented 

elsewhere in this report]. Figures 5-21 and 5-22 indicate that Pelican Lake outlet 

operations would cause increases in percent sodium on the Sheyenne River and Red 

River of the North. The magnitude of those increases would exceed the North Dakota 

antidegradation significance threshold (>15-percent increase), but would not exceed 

water quality standards. 

Chloride Effects 

The State of North Dakota’s standard for total chloride for the Sheyenne River is 

175 mg/l. Both Minnesota and North Dakota assign a standard of 100 mg/l for total 

chloride on the Red River of the North. HEC-5Q model simulations indicate that the 

concentration increases (>15 percent) would invoke North Dakota antidegradation 

procedures but that the standards would not be exceeded except in the case of a natural 

overflow (Figures 5-23 and 5-24). Modeled chloride information was used in the 

environmental effects analyses presented in Appendix C. 

Mercury Effects 

Mercury is ubiquitous in the environment and comes from natural sources as well as air 

and water pollution. It generally does not occur in surface waters in concentrations that 

are directly toxic, but under certain environmental conditions, inorganic mercury 

converts to an organic form, methylmercury, which is a very potent neurotoxin. Most 

organisms that ingest mercury do not excrete very much of it, so it becomes more 

concentrated at each higher trophic level. During the early 1990’s, the discovery that 

sport fish in Devils Lake were significantly contaminated with toxic methylmercury 

raised not only the human health concern but also concern that the stigma of the issue 

might damage the local economy, (sport fishing and associated tourism are major 

components). 

Figure 5-21: Sodium Levels for Pelican Lake Outlet Alternative, Sheyenne River 

5-92
Figure 5-22: Sodium Levels for Pelican Lake Outlet Alternative, Red River at Halstad 

Sheyenne River Near Cooperstown

 Wet Scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000200320062009201120142017202020222025202820312033203620392042204420472050

Year

Chloride (

mg/l)

PLake300

Base

Class 1A Stnd

Figure 5-23: Chloride Levels for Wet Scenario, Sheyenne River near Cooperstown

Red River of the North At Halstad

 Wet Scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000200320062008201120142016201920222024202720302032203520382040204320462048

Year

Chloride (mg/l)

PLake300

Base

Class 1 Stnd

Figure 5-24: Chloride Levels for Wet Scenario, Red River of the North at Halstad 

5-93
Many States, including North Dakota and Minnesota, have reacted to the potential public 

health risk of mercury-contaminated fish by issuing very restrictive fish consumption 

advisories. The need for evaluating the possible effects of increased mercury loading that 

would be introduced to downstream waters by a Devils Lake outlet was identified during 

the scoping process. Because data available in the Devils Lake and Red River basins 

were insufficient to describe baseline ambient conditions including variables affecting 

mobilization, fate, and transport of methylmercury, the Corps funded the USGS to 

perform a reconnaissance level investigation. 

Analysis of mercury in water is very expensive because it requires application of ultraclean sampling and laboratory protocols that call for taking extreme precautions to avoid 

contamination of sample water during sampling and analysis. Because of the high cost, it 

was practical only to perform a reconnaissance level survey of the type that would be 

necessary for scoping of more comprehensive systemic or site-specific analyses. The 

sampling design was limited to determining mercury concentrations in various forms and 

other ambient physical and chemical conditions at the times of the samplings. The study 

provided enough information to begin to describe some of the fate and transport 

mechanisms including some of the variables that affect transformation of inorganic 

mercury to methylmercury and mercury’s association with suspended solids. The study 

did not measure or describe movement of mercury along biological pathways such that 

one might predict quantitative effects of outlet operations. Such a study would be 

extremely difficult to design on a system-wide scale considering that so many of the 

time-varying physical, chemical, and biological variables in their diverse and changing 

environments are unpredictable. 

Samples were collected at 16 sites, consisting of 8 lake or wetland sites, and 8 stream

sites. The lake/wetland sites included one wetland in the Devils Lake upper basin, five 

sites throughout the Devils Lake chain, and two sites in Lake Ashtabula. The lake and 

wetland sites were sampled in mid-March and in mid-summer. Stream sites were 

sampled during spring snowmelt runoff and in mid-summer. The stream sites included 

an upper basin tributary to Devils Lake (Starkweather Coulee), three sites on the upper 

and lower reaches of the Sheyenne River, three sites on the Red River of the North, and 

one site on the Red Lake River. Samples were analyzed for filtered and unfiltered total 

and methylmercury. The samples were also analyzed for major ions and selected trace 

metals, filtered and unfiltered organic carbon, and field-measured properties including 

specific conductance, temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen. The data presented on 

Figures 5-25 and 5-26 were derived from the draft USGS report (Sando and others, 

2002),1 as was the following summary information. 

 

1 Sando, S.K., G.J. Wiche, R.F. Lundgren, B.A. Sether. 2002. “Reconnaissance Investigation of Mercury 

in Lakes, Wetlands, and Rivers in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota, February.” 

U.S. Geological Survey. Unpublished manuscript.

5-94
Mercury at Lake Sites (Summer)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Wetlnd Pl. Lk W. Bay M. Bay E. Bay E.

DLake

Asht. N. Asht. S.

Tot

al H

g (unfilt) ng/l

T. Hg

T. Methyl Hg

Figure 5-25: Total (unfiltered) Mercury and Methylmercury at Lake Sites 

Mercury at Stream Sites (Summer)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Stkwr

Coul

S. R.

Wrwk

S. R.

Bldhl

Dam

S. R.

Kind

RRN

Fargo

RRN

Hlstd

Rd Lk.

R.

RRN

Emrsn

Tot

al H

g (unfilt) ng/l

T. Hg

T. Methyl Hg

Figure 5-26: Total (unfiltered) Mercury and Methylmercury at Stream Sites 

5-95
All of the lake sites in the survey and the wetland site have sulfate concentrations high 

enough to permit sulfate reduction, which is the process that converts inorganic mercury 

to methylmercury. There are also high enough sulfate concentrations (>50 mg/l) that 

under certain site-specific conditions, mercury methylation might be inhibited. 

The wetland site in the Devils Lake upper basin has very favorable conditions for 

mercury methylation and exhibits a relatively high ratio of methylmercury to total 

mercury. Unfiltered methylmercury in the wetland site is about 10 times higher than in 

the Devils Lake sites. 

The concentration of total mercury generally is higher in Pelican Lake than in the rest of 

the Devils Lake chain. Similarly, the total mercury concentration in the upper end of 

Lake Ashtabula is greater than at the more downstream site near the dam. The ratio of 

methylmercury to total mercury generally is slightly greater in Lake Ashtabula than in 

Devils Lake. 

Total mercury concentrations generally are substantially higher in the stream sites than in 

the lake sites, indicating an association of mercury with suspended sediment. There is a 

substantial loss of mercury load between the upper Sheyenne River and Baldhill Dam,

indicating that Lake Ashtabula is a sink. The loss of mercury in Lake Ashtabula may be 

due to processes such as sedimentation, demethylation and subsequent volatilization, 

and/or uptake and bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms. 

Mercury load substantially increases on the Sheyenne River between Baldhill Dam and 

Kindred, suggesting that there is a major source of mercury from tributaries or from

suspended sediment loading downstream of the dam.

On the Red River of the North, there is a large increase in mercury loads in the reach 

between Fargo and Halstad that is much larger than can be accounted for by inputs from

the Sheyenne River. This indicates that there may be other substantial sources of 

mercury to this reach, including other tributaries besides the Sheyenne River, flux of 

mercury from stream sediments, atmospheric deposition, and various sources associated 

with the City of Fargo [and Moorhead]. 

There appears to be a loss of mercury between the Halstad and Emerson sites on the Red 

River of the North, which may be due to such processes as volatilization, deposition in 

sediments, and uptake by biota. 

The USGS concluded in its draft report, presently under peer review, that a Devils Lake 

emergency outlet would be unlikely to cause substantial impacts in the Sheyenne River 

and the Red River of the North. The report stated that there could be more significant 

effects on Lake Ashtabula because the hypereutrophic lake provides conditions favorable 

for mercury methylation, as evidenced by relatively large concentrations of 

methylmercury and relatively large ratios of unfiltered methylmercury to unfiltered total 

mercury. 

5-96
Other Downstream Water Quality Effects 

The HEC-5Q model generates output for numerous physical and chemical parameters not 

discussed above because there are no indications of adverse effects. These parameters 

include temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity, ammonia, chlorophyll, benthic 

algae, carbon dioxide, dissolved and particulate organic material, inorganic particulate 

material, flow, and water level. There is also a Devils Lake tracer that serves as a virtual 

dye for observing the specific presence of Devils Lake water in the downstream reaches. 

Some of that output is presented and discussed in Appendix A; much of it is best 

observed by using the H5QGUI (Graphical User Interface), which facilitates userinteractive browsing of output data using various plotting and animated graphing utilities 

(available on request). 

Effect of the Sand Filter on Downstream Water Quality 

Some of the water quality effects described in the preceding paragraphs would be 

moderated by the proposed sand filter by intercepting nutrients and contaminants such as 

mercury associated with biota and suspended sediment. Monitoring data from Devils 

Lake indicate that about 96 percent of the nitrogen and approximately 19 percent of the 

phosphorus is associated with particulate substances during the open water season and so 

would be retained by the sand filter. The previous discussion of downstream nutrient 

effects states that about 40 tons of phosphorus per year would be introduced into the 

Sheyenne River. Action of the sand filter could reduce the phosphorus load to about 32 

tons per year and would likely cause reduced nitrogen concentrations in the upper 

Sheyenne River and Lake Ashtabula. The filter would also intercept a significant portion 

of the mercury load because most of it is associated with suspended sediment and 

plankton. The filter would not likely detain dissolved substances such as sulfate and 

TDS. 

Effects of Uncontrolled Overflow from Stump Lake 

Figures 5-27 through 5-29 compare the downstream concentration effects of West Bay 

480-cfs unconstrained outlet operations and Pelican Lake 300-cfs constrained operations 

with the effects of the uncontrolled overflow condition during the first 20 years of 

operation. At Valley City on the Sheyenne River with outlet operations, the sulfate 

concentration would remain at or above 400 mg/l for much of the entire 20-year period 

compared with the base condition where it would rarely exceed 180 mg/l. In the 

overflow scenario, the effects would begin to appear in the year 2014 with much higher 

concentration peaks and sustained higher levels. Pelican Lake outlet operations would 

produce sulfate concentrations between 200 and 300 mg/l much of the time. From the 

perspective of water users at Valley City, both the 480-cfs outlet operations and the 

natural overflow scenarios would necessitate obtaining an alternative water supply source 

or extended source water treatment and acceptance of other environmental changes. 

Pelican Lake outlet operations would also significantly degrade the water supply source, 

likely necessitating extended or additional treatment. An important consideration from

the 

5-97
Wet Future - Sheyenne River at Valley City

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

S

ulfate (

m

g/l)

WB480 Overflow BASE PL300

Figure 5-27: Sulfate Concentrations, Sheyenne River at Valley City 

Wet Future - Red River at Halstad

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

TD

S (mg/l)

WB480 Overflow PL300 BASE

Figure 5-28: TDS Levels, Red River at Halstad 

5-98
Wet Future - Red River at Emerson

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

TD

S (

mg/l)

WB480 Overflow PL300 BASE

Figure 5-29: TDS Levels, Red River at Emerson 

perspective of the Sheyenne River water users is that, with an outlet in place and 

operating, the effects of operations would be certain while the prospects for future 

uncontrolled spill effects would be speculative. 

Figure 5-13 described phosphorus concentrations that would occur in Lake Ashtabula. 

With outlet operations, the TDS and sulfate concentrations would also increase during 

the summer to nearly match the quality of the outlet water, whether from Pelican Lake or 

West Bay. The overflow scenario assumes the quality of the Stump Lake water. The 

elevated TDS and sulfate condition would be sustained throughout the winter until the 

spring snowmelt water displaces it and the cycle would repeat. 

On the Red River near Halstad with 480-cfs unconstrained outlet operations, the TDS 

concentration would remain at or above 500 mg/l (the regulatory limit) for much of the 

entire 20-year period, compared with the base condition in which the TDS standard 

would rarely be exceeded. In the overflow scenario, the effects would begin to appear in 

the year 2014, with higher concentration peaks and sustained high levels. 

Pelican Lake outlet operations would cause some increase in the frequency and 

magnitude of concentrations in excess of 500 mg/l. From the perspective of people who 

use the Red River, and the State of Minnesota, which has the right to object if its water 

quality standards are exceeded, both the 480-cfs unconstrained outlet operation and the 

overflow scenarios would likely necessitate expensive alternative water supply sources or 

treatment technology and acceptance of other environmental changes. Pelican Lake 

300-cfs outlet operations would slightly degrade the quality of the water supply source 

but probably would not necessitate extraordinary treatment expense. An important 

consideration from the Minnesota perspective is that, with an outlet in place and 

operating, the effects of operations would be certain while the prospects for future 

uncontrolled spill effects would be speculative. 

5-99
On the Red River near Emerson, Manitoba, with 480-cfs unconstrained outlet operations, 

the TDS concentration would remain at or above 500 mg/l (objective defined pursuant to 

the Boundary Waters Treaty) for more of the time of the 20-year period, compared with 

the base condition in which the TDS objective would only sometimes be exceeded. In 

the overflow scenario, the effects would begin to appear in the year 2014, with higher 

concentration peaks and sustained levels. Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet operations would 

cause some increase in the frequency and magnitude of concentrations exceeding 

500 mg/l. From the perspective of Canadians who use the Red River, the Province of 

Manitoba, and the Government of Canada, both the 480-cfs unconstrained outlet 

operations and the overflow scenarios would result in measurable environmental changes 

that could be costly. The legislation for construction authorization states that “the plans 

for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed, and to be effective, shall contain assurances 

provided by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the International Joint 

Commission, that the project will not violate the requirements or intent of the Treaty 

between the United States and Great Britain....” Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet operations 

would slightly degrade the quality of the water supply source but probably would not 

necessitate extraordinary treatment expense. An important consideration from the 

Canadian perspective is that, with an outlet in place and operating, the effects of outlet 

operations would be certain while the prospects for future uncontrolled spill effects 

would be speculative. 

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 

Moderate Future Scenarios 

To better understand the sensitivity of assumptions used for future lake conditions, both 

with and without a project, the alternatives were compared to other possible future 

conditions as part of the sensitivity analysis. More moderate futures (with a maximum

lake elevation of 1455 and 1450) were evaluated as an alternate base condition. The 

traces used for the various scenarios in terms of lake stages are shown on Figure 5-30. 

The alternatives were not evaluated against the dry future noted on that figure. 

1455 Peak Lake Level

This moderate future trace is one of the 10,000 stochastic traces, and serves as a 

representative of approximately 25 percent of those traces. It rises to a peak level of 

1455 at about year 2014 and then recedes for the remaining 50 years. Table 5-14 

displays information on cost-effectiveness, highest lake level, and water quality impacts 

(as measured in terms of percent of time exceeding water quality parameters at three 

downstream locations). The stage effectiveness for outlet alternatives, as measured 

against this moderate future scenario, is shown on Figure 5-31. 

5-100
1420

1425

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

1460

1465

2000 2005 2010 2015 202 0 2025 2 030 2 035 2 0 4 0 204 5 2050

Year

Elevatio

n (ft. a

sl)

Wet

Mod 1455

Mod 1450

Dry

Figure 5-30: Devils Lake Elevation Scenarios 

The moderate future results show net benefits that are slightly higher than those 

computed using the stochastic analysis. This could be anticipated, because the average 

peak lake level for the stochastic analysis was 1451.7 and the median was 1450.1. 

Because this trace has a higher peak lake level than the average stochastic trace, it results 

in larger net benefits because there are more damages to reduce. However, only one of 

the six alternatives had positive net benefits and a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1 – the 

Pelican Lake 300-cfs constrained outlet. Note that only some of the alternatives were 

analyzed for the 1455 moderate future. 

1450 Peak Lake Level

This moderate future trace is one of the 10,000 stochastic traces, and serves as a 

representative of approximately 30 percent of those traces. Table 5-15 displays 

information on cost-effectiveness, highest lake levels, and water quality impacts. 

Figure 5-32 shows the stage effectiveness of various alternatives, as compared to a 

moderate future scenario of the lake’s peak level at 1450 without an outlet. It rises to 

a peak level of 1450 at about year 2014 and then recedes for the remaining 50 years. 

It also has a second peak near the end of the 50-year period, but the maximum lake level 

during the second peak is much lower than the first peak. 

The moderate future results show net benefits are generally slightly lower than those 

computed using the stochastic analysis. As mentioned earlier, the average and median 

peak lake levels for the stochastic analysis were 1451.7 and 1450.1, respectively. Again, 

the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet results in the highest benefit-cost ratio for the outlet 

alternatives, although using the most likely future, the benefit-cost ratio is only 0.38, as 

compared to 1.08 assuming a “No Action” base condition. 

5-101
Table 5-14: Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost-Effectiveness, Lake Stage 

Effectiveness, and Water Quality, Moderate Future Scenario (1455) ( )

Total Costs [1] Likely Future NoAction Highest WQ[2] WQ[3] WQ [4]

 ($million) "Net Benefits" "BCR" "BCR" Lake Level

Alternatives within the Basin ($000's)

Upper Basin Stor.-50%(UBS) 1455 0 4 11

Expand.Infrastr.Prot. (EIP) 1455 0 4 11

Raise Natural Outlet 1455 0 4 11

Outlet Alternatives

West Bay Outlet (300 cfs) $89 -$447 0.92 1.42 1453 0 14 14

 (Peterson Coulee)

West Bay Outlet (480 cfs) $175 -$2,810 0.76 1.78 1452 44 63 40

 (Peterson Coulee)

Pelican Lake Outlet (300 cfs) $120 $3,076 1.38 1.76 1450 0 23 16

Pelican Lake Outlet (480 cfs) $215 -$3846 0.73 1.54 1448 22 48 28

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL2 $232 -$5092 0.67 0.84 1450 0 7 12

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL3 $328 -$8640 0.61 1.09 1449 0 7 12

East End Outlet 

Combination Alternatives

Combination 1 (UBS, EIP) 

Combin. 2 (UBS, EIP, West Bay/300) $153 -$202 0.98 0.95 1452 14 14

Continued Infrastr. Protection 

 (this is the "likely future" base 

 condition, as measured against

 no action)

Notes:

 [1] - Total costs are present worth of all costs, including annual Operation and Maintenance

 [2] - Downstreamwater quality, as represented by percentage of time Sulfate standard of 450 mg/L

 is exceeded at Valley City, ND (years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario)

 [3] - Downstreamwater quality, as represented by percentage of time TDSstandard of 500 mg/L

 is exceeded at Halstad, MN (years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario)

 [4] - Downstream water quality, as represented by percentage of timeTDS objective of 500 mg/L

 is exceeded at Emerson, MB (years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario)

 

5-102
Devils Lake Elevation

Moderate Trace 1455

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

1460

2 000 2 0 0 5 2010 2015 202 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 4 0 2 045 2 0 50

Year

El

e

v

atio

n (ft.

a

sl)

Base

WB300/450

UBS/300/450

PL300/450

WB480

Figure 5-31: Stage Effectiveness for Outlet Alternatives 

Measured Against Moderate Future Scenario 

(Note: The following sensitivity studies were performed using the more detailed cost 

estimate of the selected outlet alternative, as summarized in Table 5-22) 

Erosion of the Natural Outlet 

One of the assumptions for the base condition upon which alternatives were compared 

was that measures would be taken at the location of a natural overflow to minimize 

erosion. Although no design or cost estimate was developed for such measures, the 

features of the natural outlet raise alternative can put this assumption into perspective. 

The structure envisioned with that alternative included a 380-foot-wide concrete drop 

structure, with a cost for the structural portion of $1.1 million. This sensitivity analysis 

was done to evaluate the effect of the assumption of minimal erosion at the natural outlet. 

Erosion of the natural outlet was evaluated as a sensitivity analysis for the wet future 

scenario with and without a Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet. The analysis indicated that the 

outlet control point would slowly be eroded, with the maximum potential erosion 

occurring down to elevation 1450.8 and a peak discharge of 6,000 cfs expected to occur 

during year 17 of the wet future scenario. (This compares to a peak discharge of only 

550 cfs when no erosion of the Tolna Coulee is assumed.) With erosion at the natural 

outlet, the peak lake level is reduced by 0.30 foot, and the duration of high lake levels is 

much smaller. As shown on Figure 5-33, peak lake levels are similar when comparing a 

wet future scenario, with and without erosion. However, long-term lake levels are lower 

if significant erosion occurs. 

5-103
Table 5-15: Matrix of Alternatives Considering Cost-Effectiveness, Lake Stage 

Effectiveness, and Water Quality, Moderate Future Scenario (1450) ( )

Total Costs [1] Likely Future No Action Highest WQ [2] WQ [3] WQ [4]

 ($million) "Net Benefits" "BCR" "BCR" Lake Level

Alternatives within the Basin ($000's)

UpperBasin Stor.-50% (UBS) 1450 0 2 9

Expand.Infrastr.Prot.(EIP) 1450 0 2 9

RaiseNatural Outlet 1450 0 2 9

Outlet Alternatives

West BayOutlet (300 cfs) $87 -$5,271 0.10 0.16 1450 0 9 13

 (Peterson Coulee)

West BayOutlet (480 cfs) $170 -$12085 -0.06 0.77 1447 21 35 34

 (Peterson Coulee)

Pelican Lake Outlet (300 cfs) $117 -$4,841 0.38 1.08 1447 0 18 16

Pelican Lake Outlet (480 cfs) $206 -$13,970 -0.01 0.68 1447 27 26 28

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL2 $227 -$13,576 0.11 0.41 1449 0 3 14

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs) - PL3 $324 -$18,460 0.15 0.41 1448 0 3 14

EastEnd Outlet 

Combination Alternatives

Combination1 (UBS, EIP) 

Combin. 2 (UBS, EIP, West Bay/300) $127 -$4,994 0.41 0.82 1448 0 9 13

Continued Infrastr. Protection 

 (this is the "likelyfuture" base

 condition, as measured against

 no action)

Notes:

 [1]-Total costs are present worth of all costs, including annual Operation and Maintenance

 [2] - Downstreamwater quality, as represented by percentage of time Sulfate standard of 450 mg/L

 isexceeded at ValleyCity, ND (years 2005-2014, assuming wet futurescenario)

 [3] - Downstreamwater quality, as represented by percentage of time TDS standard of 500 mg/L

 is exceeded at Halstad, MN (years 2005-2014, assuming wet futurescenario)

 [4] - Downstreamwater quality, as represented by percentage of time TDS objectiveof 500 mg/L

 isexceeded at Emerson, MB(years 2005-2014, assuming wet future scenario)

5-104
Devils Lake Elevation

Moderate Trace 1450

1425

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

2 000 2005 2 0 10 2015 2020 202 5 2 030 2035 2 0 4 0 2 045 2050

Year

El

e

v

atio

n (ft. a

sl)

Base

WB300/450

UBS/300/450

PL300/450

WB480

Figure 5-32: Stage Effectiveness of Various Alternatives Compared to a Moderate 

Future Scenario of the Lakes Peak Level Without an Outlet 

Devils Lake Elevation

With Erosion of Tolna Coulee Outlet

1420

1425

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

1460

1465

2 000 2 0 0 5 2010 2015 2020 2 025 2 0 3 0 203 5 2040 2045 2050

Year

Elevatio

n (ft. asl)

Wet

With Tolna Erosion

Figure 5-33: Devils Lake Elevation with Erosion of Tolna Coulee Outlet 

5-105
The erosion sensitivity analysis evaluated the impacts of erosion of the overflow point 

and adjacent upper reaches of Tolna Coulee. The coulee upper channel profile consists 

of two relatively steep sections located on both sides of a broad, flat marshy area that 

initially controls the outflow from Stump Lake. The upstream end of this marshy area is 

slightly higher than the initial Stump Lake overflow point. Initially, erosion was 

assumed to start at the downstream end of this broad marshy area and proceed upstream

to the overflow point. It was assumed that erosion would continue until the upper coulee 

becomes stable. Soil information at the natural outlet is limited, but suggests the soils are 

moderate to highly erodible. 

Based on the most recent surveys, overflow from Stump Lake occurs when the lake level 

reaches an elevation of 1459.1 feet. The analysis indicates that the outlet control point 

would slowly be eroded, with the maximum potential erosion occurring down to 1450.8. 

Using sediment transport rates and the volume of overflow, the time for this erosion to 

occur was estimated to be approximately 9 months. The sediment transport rates and 

associated discharge rating curves were used in the U.S. Geological Survey model to 

evaluate the impacts on the lake level and downstream channel characteristics. 

Because of increased damages that would occur with erosion of the natural outlet, net 

benefits increase for all of the outlet alternatives analyzed for the wet future scenario 

when erosion is assumed. For the selected Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet, the benefit-cost 

ratio for the wet future scenario increases from 1.54 to 1.86 when the base condition 

assumes erosion at the natural outlet. For the stochastic scenario, an increase in net 

benefits for outlet alternatives would also be expected, but not by the same degree. This 

is because less than 10 percent of the stochastic traces overflow over the outlet and most 

of those traces result in less overflow, and therefore less erosion, than is produced by the 

wet future scenario. 

While the assumption that erosion would be allowed to occur, and that it would occur at 

the rate computed, increases the benefits for an outlet alternative, these benefits would be 

realized by any alternative that prevented erosion, such as a concrete weir that held the 

outlet at its overflow elevation of 1459 feet msl. 

In the lake, the lands would be exposed more quickly and recovery would be more rapid. 

There are approximately 114,685 acres between elevations 1450 and 1459 around Stump 

Lake and Devils Lake. 

Downstream effects resulting from the erosion of the natural outlet would be 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 

the downstream aquatic resource on the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. Higher flows, 

changed water quality, sedimentation, erosion, increased groundwater levels, and 

overbank flooding would result in the loss of aquatic and riparian habitats. 

5-106
Proposed Temporary Outlet as Part of Future Conditions 

The State’s proposed temporary outlet was not included in the modeling and evaluation 

of alternatives since the certainty of implementation and actual design parameters of the 

plan were not determined at the time this report’s analyses were being accomplished. 

Although the proposed plan is controversial and still has a high level of uncertainty, the 

state is proceeding with plans to initiate operation. The plans call for pumping 100 cfs 

through an outlet, which is to be primarily an open channel, from the West Bay to the 

Sheyenne River. There would be provisions for adding additional pumping capacity, up 

to 300 cfs, in the future. The operating plan would be constrained so as not to exceed 

sulfate concentrations of 300 mg/l or exceed 600 cfs flow in the Sheyenne River at the 

insertion point. The State’s proposed temporary outlet is designed with a minimum

pumping level of 1445. The sensitivity analysis defines the economic feasibility of the 

Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet plan, assuming the State’s proposed temporary outlet under 

the without-project conditions. In other words, the intent was to evaluate the incremental 

cost-effectiveness of the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet, assuming the temporary outlet was 

able to function indefinitely in the absence of the permanent outlet. 

For this analysis, the without-project condition assumes construction of the State’s 

proposed temporary outlet together with the other assumed base condition measures, such 

as continuation of emergency infrastructure measures. The with-project condition 

assumes construction of the Pelican Lake outlet and not the temporary outlet. It was 

assumed that construction of the Pelican Lake outlet would begin immediately and that 

the outlet would be operational in 2005. The temporary outlet was assumed to be in 

place and operational until the lake level drops to elevation 1443. The outlet would draw 

water from West Bay and would begin operation at a capacity of 100 cfs by May 2004 

and 300 cfs by May 2006. It would be constrained to not exceed 300 mg/l sulfate 

concentration or 600 cfs flow at the insertion point. 

Since the temporary outlet would not be constructed under the with-project conditions, 

the benefits of not constructing the temporary outlet were included as project benefits 

(similar to other features that would not have to be protected under with-project 

conditions). 

As shown in Table 5-16, the analysis indicates that including the State’s proposed 

temporary outlet in the most likely future without project would alter the benefit-cost 

ratio, but does not change the conclusions of the alternative formulation analysis. The 

wet future analysis shows the greatest change in the BCR, being reduced from 1.54 to 

1.17. 

5-107
Table 5-16: State’s Proposed Temporary Outlet Operated Indefinitely 

y y

 Incremental Cost Effectiveness for Pelican Lake 300 cfs Outlet

(Effect on Cost Effectiveness if Temporary Outlet is included with Most Likely Future without Project)

 Without Temporary Outlet With Temporary Outlet

Annual Net BCR Annual Net BCR

 Benefits Benefits Benefits Benefits

Stochastic Analysis $2,595 ($11,325) 0.19 $1,759 ($12,161) 0.13

Wet Future Scenario $22,554 $7,942 1.54 $17,072 $2,460 1.17

1455 Moderate Future $7,818 ($6,328) 0.55 $7,555 ($6,590) 0.53

1450 Moderate Future $1,847 ($12,135) 0.13 $1,396 ($12,585) 0.10

The flow effects on natural resources resulting from the state outlet are expected to be 

less than those described for the Pelican Lake outlet because less water would be pumped 

overall and at any particular time. This is due to the water quality constraint and 

conditions in West Bay. The lower outlet flow would result in smaller changes in river 

stage, less groundwater effects, and less flow in the river than would result from the 

Pelican Lake outlet. This should result in less effect to aquatic habitat and riparian 

vegetation. 

Sulfate Constraints and Operational Plan 

General

The Pelican Lake alternatives include operational plans with a range of pumping 

capacities and operational constraints - including no constraints. Constraints pertain to 

limitations on pumping capacity/volume for both high and low flow conditions on the 

Sheyenne River. For high flow conditions, limitations were placed on pumping so as to 

not exceed downstream, Upper Sheyenne River, channel capacity (i.e., 600 cfs). For low 

flow conditions, limitations were imposed on pumping volume so as to not exceed water 

quality standards at the insertion point on the Sheyenne River (e.g., 450 mg/l SO4). 

Based on detailed simulations and study, the best overall Pelican Lake outlet plan (in 

terms of hydrologic effectiveness and minimum water quality exceedances) is an outlet 

that has a pumping capacity of 300 cfs, constrained for 600-cfs channel capacity and 

300-mg/l sulfate concentration. With the Dry Lake Diversion feature of this alternative, 

this plan will reduce the peak lake level under the wet future scenario from an elevation 

of 1460.59 feet msl for without-project conditions to 1457.5 feet msl for with-project 

conditions (i.e., a reduction of 3.1 feet). 

5-108
Outlet Effectiveness Sensitivity to Pumping Constraints

Various pumping constraint options were studied. Figure 5-34 shows the effectiveness in 

terms of reduced lake level for the constraints that were studied. This figure shows that 

effectiveness is constant for the wet future scenario for sulfate concentrations from

450 mg/l to 300 mg/l but then begins to decline with lower sulfate constraints. The 

moderate scenarios show steady declines in peak lake level reduction below 450 mg/l. 

Figures 5-35 through 5-37 show the degree to which outlet operations are constrained by 

the different sulfate constraints for the wet and moderate scenarios. Based on these 

relationships, a sulfate constraint of 300 mg/l was selected for further investigation. For 

comparison, Figures 5-38 through 5-40 show elevation plots for the Pelican Lake outlet 

for each hydrologic scenario and for sulfate constraints of 450 mg/l and 300 mg/l along 

with a no-pumping project scenario. Comparison of downstream TDS levels are 

provided in the following water quality sensitivity discussion and further information on 

other water quality parameters is provided in Appendix A. 

Water Quality Sensitivity to Sulfate Constraints

In the Wet Scenario, constraining operations at 300 mg/l sulfate rather than 450 mg/l 

makes very little difference at all downstream locations until the later (dry) years. 

Because of the abundance of high quality upper basin water, the 450-mg/l sulfate 

limitation is rarely encountered. The relative Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) concentration 

effect at Valley City is illustrated on Figure 5-41. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Sulfate Constraint (mg/l)

Elev. (ft.)

WET w/div

MOD55 w/div

MOD50 w/div

Figure 5-34: Peak Elevation Reduction as a Function of mg/l Constraint 

5-109
Wet Scenario

Pelican Lake Outlet Operation

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005200520062006200720072008200820092009201020102011201220122013201320142014

Year

Discharge (cfs)

450 SO4

300 SO4

Figure 5-35: Effect of Pumping Constraints, Wet Scenario 

Moderate Future Max Lake Level 1455

Outlet Operation

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

200520052006200620072007200820082009201020102011201120122012201320132014

Year

Discharge (cfs)

450 SO4

300 SO4

Figure 5-36: Effect of Pumping Constraints, Moderate Future 

Maximum Lake Level 1455 

Moderate Future Max Lake Level 1450

 Pelican Lake Outlet Operation

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005200520062006200720072008200820092009201020102011201220122013201320142014

Year

Discharge (cfs)

450 SO4

300 SO4

Figure 5-37: Effect of Pumping Constraints, Moderate Future 

Maximum Lake Level 1450 

5-110
Devils Lake Elevations

Wet Scenario

1445

1447

1449

1451

1453

1455

1457

1459

1461

2001200420072010

2013

20162019202220252028

20312034203720402043

2046

2049

Year

Lake Elevation (ft. asl)

No Outlet

Constrained 450

Constrained 300

Figure 5-38: Elevation Plot, Pelican Lake Outlet, Wet Scenario 

Devils Lake Elevations

Moderate 1455 Scenario

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

2019

2022

2025

2028

2031

2034

203720402043

20462049

Year

Lake Elevation (ft. asl)

No Outlet

Constrained 450

Constrained 300

Figure 5-39: Elevation Plot, Pelican Lake Outlet, Moderate 1455 Scenario 

Devils Lake Elevations

Moderate 1450 Scenario

1425

1430

1435

1440

1445

1450

200120042007

2010

2013

2016

20192022

2025

20282031

2034

2037

2040204320462049

Year

Lake Elevation (ft. asl)

No Outlet

Constrained 450

Constrained 300

Figure 5-40: Elevation Plot, Pelican Lake Outlet, Moderate 1450 Scenario 

5-111
Wet Scenario at Valley City

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

200520052006200620072007200820082009201020102011201120122012201320132014

Year

TDS (mg/l)

450 SO4

300 SO4

Base

Figure 5-41: Relative TDS Concentration Effect at Valley City,

Wet Scenario 

In the less wet scenarios, the 300-mg/l sulfate constraint is frequently encountered during 

dry periods because the supply of relatively fresh upper basin water becomes depleted 

and some of the saltier Devils Lake water gets drawn into Pelican Lake. In the Moderate 

1455 Scenario, the 300-mg/l sulfate constraint significantly reduces TDS and sulfate 

concentration peaks and reduces the frequency of exceedance of water quality standards 

relative to operations constrained at 450 sulfate. On the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba 

the percent of time that the 500-mg/l TDS objective is exceeded is reduced from

16 percent to 13 percent (base condition 11 percent). Figure 5-42 shows that the TDS 

concentrations at Valley City. 

In the less wet scenarios, the 300-mg/l sulfate constraint is frequently encountered during 

dry periods because the supply of relatively fresh upper basin water becomes depleted 

and some of the saltier Devils Lake water gets drawn into Pelican Lake. In the Moderate 

1455 Scenario, the 300-mg/l sulfate constraint significantly reduces TDS and sulfate 

concentration peaks and reduces the frequency of exceedance of water quality standards 

relative to operations constrained at 450 sulfate. On the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba 

the percent of time that the 500-mg/l TDS objective is exceeded is reduced from

16 percent to 13 percent (base condition 11 percent). Figure 5-42 shows that the TDS 

concentrations at Valley City. 

Moderate Future Max Lake Level 1455

at Valley City

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

200520052006200620072007200820082009201020102011201120122012201320142014

Year

TDS (

mg/l)

450 SO4

300 SO4

Base

Figure 5-42: Relative TDS concentration Effect at Valley City, 

Moderate Future Maximum Lake Level 1455 

5-112
Consideration of Systemic Operating Strategies to Reduce Water Quality Effects

TDS concentrations on the Red River of the North, under existing conditions, vary 

around the 500-mg/l TDS objective. The variability at any given location is driven by a 

combination of locally and systemically variable hydrologic conditions. Short-term

(peaking) variability is driven largely by passing weather fronts. Longer-term variability 

is related to the changing seasons. The Corps of Engineers operates dams on several of 

the tributary streams, which affects TDS variability. Some of the streams are naturally 

more saline than others. As flow conditions change, the waters combine in continually 

varying proportions. Orwell Dam on the Ottertail River, a tributary to the Red River of 

the North, regulates a relatively fresh water source. The Lake Traverse project on the 

Bois de Sioux River, a tributary to the Red River of the North, regulates water with TDS 

and sulfate concentrations similar to Devils Lake West Bay. Baldhill Dam on the 

Sheyenne River regulates a major tributary with a natural TDS condition that is often 

greater than 600 mg/l. Additionally, there are several very high TDS sources that 

contribute near the Canadian border that are not regulated. 

The ideal systemic operating plan for minimizing TDS levels is one in which all dam gate 

and pump operations could be coordinated to release discrete masses of water such that 

they would intercept or avoid each other to achieve the desired dilutions downstream. 

Such accurate operation would require perfect knowledge of the course, speed, and water 

quality of multiple sources of water on a real-time basis. The biggest problem with this 

is that time of travel from the various gates to the target locations is on the order of 

several days to several weeks. Local transient events, (i.e., storm events or extended dry 

periods) are unpredictable in that time frame. Less ideally, however more realistically, 

we would have to settle for a general expectation rather than perfect knowledge that there 

will be targets downstream in three or four weeks. 

The options for manipulating gates at Orwell, Traverse, and Baldhill Dam are extremely 

limited. They must be operated for their authorized project purposes. Orwell reservoir is 

too small to provide significant conservation storage. Lake Traverse is a high TDS 

source and has a long history of causing hardness and other water quality problems at the 

Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, water utilities. The issues surrounding 

such a comprehensive operational strategy are complex. In the past, operational 

strategies have been tested and compromises made; however, it is anticipated that any 

further change would likely stimulate additional controversy. 

With outlet operations, Lake Ashtabula (Baldhill Dam) becomes up to 80 percent Devils 

Lake water by late summer each year. Under the existing operating plan for the Baldhill 

Dam, the reservoir must be drawn down for flood control storage each winter. These 

high seasonal flows from the Sheyenne River contribute significantly to high TDS 

conditions on the Red River of the North during fall and winter months. It may not be 

feasible to target fall and winter exceedances very effectively (i.e., by withholding 

discharges from Baldhill Dam) without reducing outlet pumping or compromising flood 

protection for Valley City. 

Outlet operations could be scheduled, however, to affect reduced flows on the lower 

5-113
Sheyenne River in the fall; however, a 3- to 4-week delay to allow for hydraulic travel 

time would have to be built into this plan. To examine the efficacy of such a strategy, 

two scenarios (i.e., Wet, and Moderate 1455) were run with the HEC-5Q model in which 

outlet pumping was discontinued during August of each year with the expectation that 

TDS conditions on the Red River in September might be improved. Figure 5-43 presents 

the count of all exceedance days sorted by months for the first 10 years of outlet 

operation under the Wet Scenario. The “No Aug” strategy appears to significantly 

reduce the number of exceedances not only in September, but in the next 4 months as 

well. The total number of exceedances was reduced from 373 to 279 (base condition 

129). 

TDS Exceedances at Halstad

Wet Scenario Years 2005 - 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

Exceedance Days (10-year count)

Base

7-Year

NoAug

Figure 5-43: TDS Exceedances at Halstad, Wet Scenario 

In the Moderate 1455 Scenario (Figure 5-44), the “NoAug”strategy was considerably less 

effective in terms of exceedance counting. Concentration reductions were achieved (not 

shown) but usually not enough to get below 500 mg/l. The poor performance is mostly 

due to the fact that critical conditions on the Red River occurred during relatively dry 

years when August pumping was already reduced by the sulfate constraint so that 

shutting of the pumps in August would not significantly reduce flow on the lower 

Sheyenne River in September. 

In terms of effect on lake stages with the “NoAug” strategy in place, peak Devils Lake 

levels under the Wet Scenario were 1458.2 feet for the “NoAug” strategy, rather than 

1457.5 feet for the full 7-month outlet operation. 

5-114
TDS Exceedances at Halstad

Moderate 1455 Scenario

Years 2005 - 2014

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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

Exceedance Days (10-year count)

Base

7-Month

No Aug

Figure 5-44: TDS Exceedances at Hadstad, Moderate Scenario 

The “NoAug” scenarios were examined and presented here as an example of how various 

real-time operational strategies may be effective in improving downstream water quality 

conditions. The exercise also confirms that there probably is no strategy that would 

eliminate all exceedances of water quality standards and that effective water quality 

improvement generally comes at the expense of outlet effectiveness. For the purpose of 

this report, it is assumed that such a reduction in outlet effectiveness would not be 

acceptable and is therefore not reflected in the selected operating plan. However, it 

should be noted that it would be most appropriate, in the context of adaptive management 

and interagency collaboration, to pursue operational strategies in the future that would 

reduce the number of water quality exceedances while not significantly reducing the 

effectiveness of the outlet. 

Consideration of an Operating Strategy Based on Constraining Operations Each Year 

Dependent on the Spring Inflow Forecast

All of the operational simulations described previously in this report assume that the 

outlet would operate up to the 300 cfs maximum discharge from year to year to achieve a 

lake draw-down objective regardless of expected spring runoff. Reviewers of the Draft 

EIS suggested that operating from year to year constrained by an expected runoff criteria 

might be effective and reduce downstream water quality effects. To evaluate that three 

scenarios were run: Wet, Moderate 1455, and Moderate 1450, in which the pumping rate 

would be constrained to 200 cfs in any year with a spring forecast inflow of less than 

60,000 acre-feet, a volume that represents about one half foot on the lake at the current 

level. The model simulations indicated that there would be only very slight differences 

in outlet effectiveness and downstream water quality effects during the first ten years of

operation. In the Wet Scenario only one of the first ten years would be dry enough to 

trigger the constraint. In the moderate scenarios operations would become so limited by 

the 300 mg/l sulfate constraint that the forecast criterion would be for the most part 

irrelevant. 

5-115
Sensitivity of Outlet Effectiveness and Water Quality Effects to Ramped Outlet 

Operations

All of the operational simulations described previously in this report assume that daily 

discharge changes would be made in the full measure proscribed by the channel capacity 

and water quality constraints. In reality the discharges would be ramped up and ramped 

down over periods of several days to protect aquatic organisms that need time to adapt to 

changing flow conditions. To evaluate the sensitivity of outlet effectiveness and water 

quality effects to ramped operations simulations were run of the Wet Scenario, Moderate 

1455, and Moderate 1450 in which daily outlet discharges were increased by not more 

than 50 cfs per day and were not decreased by more than 25 cfs per day. The simulations 

indicated that there would be insignificant differences in operational effectiveness and 

downstream water quality effects because relatively small quantities of water would be 

affected by ramping. 

Dry Lake Diversion Incremental Justification 

To improve the effectiveness of the Pelican Lake outlet plan with a 300-cfs pumping 

capacity and 300-mg/l sulfate constraint (shown in the previous section to be the most 

effective plan with minimal water quality impact), the Corps analyzed a diversion feature 

from Dry Lake. The Dry Lake Diversion feature modifies the operation of the existing 

Dry Lake-Channel A project and, in conjunction with other project features, restores a 

portion of the historic flow of fresh water from Dry Lake to Pelican Lake via Big Coulee. 

Modeling done by the USGS showed that 80 percent of the total volume that could be 

conveyed to Big Coulee could be accomplished with a 500-cfs diversion. A diversion 

with larger capacity did not appear to justify the increase in costs and environmental 

impacts for the effectiveness gained. As part of the sensitivity analysis, the Corps 

requested that the USGS make some simulations using a maximum diversion discharge 

of 500 cfs. Flows up to 500 cfs were diverted through the Dry Lake Diversion regardless 

of the flow rate in Big Coulee. Flows out of Dry Lake in excess of 500 cfs were then 

diverted through the Channel A diversion. The sensitivity runs were made for a 300-cfs 

pumping capacity, a range of sulfate constraint values, three hydrologic scenarios, and 

with and without the diversion feature. Figure 5-45 shows the results of these runs. 

5-116
Peak Elev. Reduction

as a Function of mg/l Constraint &

 with or without Dry L. Max. 500 cfs Diversion

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Sulfate Constraint (mg/l)

Elev. (ft.)

WET w/div

WET w/o div

MOD55 w/div

MOD55 w/o div

MOD50 w/div

MOD50 w/o div

Figure 5-45: Results of Sensitivity Runs, with or without Dry Lake Diversion 

The adopted plan is the Pelican Lake 300-cfs pumping capacity, constrained for 300 mg/l 

sulfate. Without a diversion, the reduction for the wet future is only 0.5 foot, but with the 

diversion, the reduction is 3.1 feet in stage on Devils Lake. The diversion cost is 

estimated at approximately $10 million. If no diversion were adopted, the equivalent 

stage reduction could be achieved only by increasing the water quality constraint to 

450 mg/l SO4. However, this option would increase water quality exceedances 

downstream. Therefore, the $10-million diversion feature not only improves the 

hydrologic effectiveness of this alternative, but also helps to minimize downstream water 

quality exceedances. 

Table 5-17 shows the economic results of the incremental analysis of including the Dry 

Lake Diversion with the Pelican Lake outlet. The associated Pelican Lake outlet has a 

pumping capacity of 300 cfs, constrained for 300 mg/l SO4 (PL300/300). For the 

stochastic analysis and three future scenarios, the benefit-cost ratio is above unity, 

ranging from 1.02 to 12.31. The analysis shows that the diversion is an economically 

justified feature of the outlet alternative. Appendix A documents this analysis in more 

detail. 

5-117
Table 5-17: Dry Lake Diversion Economic Analysis 

 

Analysis Type or Future 

Scenario Total Cost

Lake Level 

Without 

Diversion

Lake Level 

With 

Diversion

Total 

Annual 

Benefits

Total 

Annual 

Net 

Benefits 

BCR

Stochastic $9,068 1456.91 1455.851 $704 $15 1.02

Wet Future $9,068 1460.1 1457.5 $12,050 $11,071 12.31

Moderate 1455 Future $9,068 1453.9 1452.1 $1,917 $1,131 2.44

Moderate 1450 Future $9,068 1449.6 1448.9 $1,225 $516 1.73

Note: All Costs are in Thousands of Dollars. 

1 Elevation based on 10% probability of reaching or exceeding given lake level in 50 years. 

ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

Intangible Considerations 

Recognizing the many considerations associated with the alternatives evaluation, 

Table 5-18 has been prepared in an attempt to summarize the somewhat more intangible 

aspects of developing a recommendation. 

The categories of considerations are first divided between the Devils Lake area and the 

downstream area. A number of the potential solutions for flooding at Devils Lake have 

completely opposite sets of impacts and viewpoints from these two areas, a common 

situation with most water resource projects. For the Devils Lake area, the categories 

identified are social effectiveness, environmental impact, Tribal issues (in connection 

with the Fort Totten Indian Reservation), and acceptability/implementability. For the 

downstream area, the areas of consideration are social impacts, environmental impacts, 

the ability to reduce the risk of a natural overflow, and acceptability/implementability. 

General Conclusions 

The analysis accomplished for this evaluation of alternatives shows that selection of an 

alternative is highly dependent on assumptions made with respect to future lake levels. 

Using the results of the stochastic modeling approach for the economic analysis, the only 

cost-effective alternative appears to be the continuation of infrastructure measures within 

the Devils Lake basin, including measures for further flood protection and continued 

transportation needs. If a wet future is assumed to occur, the outlet plans are shown to be 

the most cost-effective alternatives for addressing the damages associated with rising 

water levels at Devils Lake. 

5-118
Table 5-18: Matrix of Alternatives – Other Considerations 

Devils Lake Area Downstream 

 Social Environmental Tribal Acceptability/ Social Environmen

Impacts Impacts Issues Implementable? Impacts Impacts 

Alternatives within the BasinUpper Basin Storage Landowner Minimal Minimal Some oposition No impact No impact 

opposition

Expanded Infrastructure Protection Additional area Minimal Portion of reservation Yes, but does not No impact No impact 

protected from flooding protected stop lake rise

Raise Natural Outlet Unacceptable Significant Unacceptable Strong opposition No impact No impact Outlet AlternativesWest Bay Outlet (300 cfs) Minimal stage Minor adverse Portion of outlet on Yes Some flooding, Significant 

 (Peterson Coulee) reduction WQ in lake reservation lands erosion, WQ 

West Bay Outlet (480 cfs) Most effective Moderate adverse Portion of outlet on Yes More signif. Flooding Very Signific

 (Peterson Coulee) stage reduction WQ in lake reservation lands ersosion, WQ 

Pelican Lake Outlet (300 cfs) Moderate stage Minor adverse Water Quality Yes Some flooding, Significant 

reduction WQ in lake in lake erosion, WQ 

Pelican Lake Outlet (480 cfs) Most effective Moderate adverse Water Quality High Cost & In-Lake More signif. Flooding Very Signific

stage reduction WQ in lake in lake WQ at Issue erosion, WQ 

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs)/PL2 More effective More adverse Water Quality High Cost & In-Lake Moderate flooding, Moderate 

stage reduction WQ in lake in lake WQ at Issue erosion, WQ 

Pelican Lake Bypass (480 cfs)/PL3 More effective More adverse Water Quality High Cost & In-Lake Moderate flooding, Moderate 

stage reduction WQ in lake in lake WQ at Issue erosion, WQ 

East End Outlet Most effective Improved WQ Preferred Plan Preferred Significant impacts Very Signific

stage reduction in lake 

Combination AlternativesCombination 1 (UBS, EIP) Minimal impact, but Minimal Minimal Some opposition No impact No impact 

minimal effectiveness

Combin. 2 (UBS, EIP, Peterson/300) Minimal stg.reduction, Moderate adverse Portion of outlet on Yes? Moderate flooding, Moderate 

but other protect. WQ in lake reservation lands ersosion, WQ 

Continued Infrastructure Protection Protection, but no Minimal Protection, but no Funding and local No impact No impact 

 (this is the "likely future" base stage reduction stage reduction acceptance problems

condition, as measured against no action)

Notes:

 - As measured against the base condition (continued emergency measures)

 - The word "significant" is used as a term of comparativety in the table and is not used in the same context as "significant" under NEPA

5-119
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. The stochastic model provides a 

means of conducting a probability weighted economic analysis. While the use of a wet 

future scenario may provide insight into potential benefits of the outlet alternatives, such 

an analysis provides little assurance as to the soundness of such an investment, since it is 

tied to the unlikely assumption that a particular scenario will ever occur. Studies indicate 

that an outlet plan using methods that would determine expected net benefits by 

producing probability-weighted benefits and costs would not be economically justified. 

Within the context of this evaluation, the preferred action in the near term would be the 

continuation of infrastructure protection. 

Departing from stochastic-based methods and using a cost-effectiveness analysis with the 

scenario of a future without-project condition of a repeated wet cycle (a non-probabilistic 

analysis) indicates a Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet plan would be the overall best outlet 

alternative. It is among the best outlet alternatives for maximizing net benefits for the 

stochastic and wet future scenario approaches. This outlet alternative maximizes net 

benefits for both the 1455 and 1450 moderate scenarios and is among the best of the 

outlet designs for minimizing downstream water quality impacts. 

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR MORE DETAILED 

ANALYSIS 

From the Intermediate Array of alternatives, the alternatives that address the planning 

objectives and have the most likelihood of implementation were carried forward for more 

detailed analysis. Following is a summary of the outcome of the selection process. The 

final cost estimates for the alternatives that will be carried forward for the detailed 

evaluation vary from the estimates used in the preceding alternative screening, since the 

final cost estimates (and resulting Benefit-Cost Ratios) are developed with a greater level 

of detail. 

Most Likely Future Without Project (Infrastructure Protection Plan)

This is the base condition, against which other alternatives are compared. Carry 

forward for more detailed analysis. 

Outlets

The 300-cfs outlet plan constrained for downstream channel capacity and sulfate levels 

was selected as the best of the outlet alternatives because it provides the ability to operate 

and minimize the number of times that downstream water quality standards on the Red 

River are exceeded while providing as much effectiveness as possible in reducing lake 

levels. As described previously in the sensitivity analysis section Sulfate Constraints 

and Operational Plan, an outlet with a 300-mg/l constraint for SO4 can be provided 

using a Pelican Lake alignment with little change in effectiveness under the Wet Scenario 

versus the plan with a 450-mg/l constraint. Based on this information and on the 

discussion in the General Conclusions above, the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet with a 

5-120
300-mg/l constraint for water quality should be carried forward for more detailed 

analysis. 

Raise Natural Outlet

This alternative was dropped from the study because it does not address flooding in the 

Devils Lake Basin and does not have positive net benefits. 

Upper Basin Storage

Although the effectiveness of this alternative was shown to be minimal in the evaluation 

of the Intermediate Array of alternatives, it still retains much interest from many 

stakeholders. Carry forward for more detailed analysis. 

Expanded Infrastructure Protection

This alternative was shown to have positive net economic benefits based on the analysis 

performed for the Intermediate Evaluation. Carry forward for more detailed analysis. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED IN DETAIL 

Four alternatives were carried forward from the intermediate array of alternatives. 

Additional design and study were performed in order to better define the alternatives, 

their costs and economic benefits, and their impacts. 

Most Likely Future Without Project (Infrastructure Protection Plan) 

Introduction

Scope 

As previously stated, the most likely future without-project condition is the continuation 

of infrastructure protection measures similar to what have been constructed in the recent 

past. However, in an attempt to more fully define this future without-project condition, a 

more advanced analysis of the 24 previously identified infrastructure features around the 

lake was performed by Barr Engineering in order to better identify the most economical 

flood protection measures. The study used previous work described in the section 

“Intermediate Alternatives” and in Appendix B as its base. The study reexamined the 

previous work to better identify significant areas and structures needing protection, and 

evaluate in greater detail the costs and benefits of flood protection measures that would 

need to be implemented. Because the expected actions at higher lake levels are more 

uncertain and are not of imminent concern, the study focused on performing detailed 

analysis only on the first flooding-related actions that would be needed before the lake 

reached elevation 1454 feet msl. For lake levels greater than 1454, flood damages and 

protection for infrastructure were evaluated at a similar level of detail as the previous 

5-121
analysis. The remaining flood damages and protection for structures up to elevation 

1463 feet msl were evaluated at a level of detail similar to the previous analysis. 

Recommended Features 

Two of the infrastructure features have had planning and analysis carried to a much 

higher level of detail than the others. This study shows that both of these features have 

positive net benefits. For Feature 2, the City of Devils Lake, the next levee raise has 

been extensively developed and Plans and Specifications are currently being prepared for 

this feature. In addition, an Environmental Assessment, a Micro Computer Aided Cost 

Engineering System (MCACES) cost estimate, and a Gross Appraisal of Real Estate have 

been completed for this feature, allowing it to be recommended as a Federal flood control 

project. The planning for this project is summarized in a report titled City of Devils Lake 

Alternative Alignment Study. A study of Feature 16, US Highway 281, south of US 

Highway 2, has been performed by the North Dakota Department of Transportation and 

is nearing completion as well. 

Following is a summary of the most recent study and its results. For more details on how 

the study was performed and the results of the study, please refer to the report titled 

Devils Lake Infrastructure Protection Study, January 2003 by Barr Engineering. 

Devils Lake Features Analyzed

The analysis performed during the recent study was focused on the features that would 

require action in the near future. Sixteen features were identified that would require 

some sort of flood protection action at lake levels below 1454. The 24 previously 

identified features are listed below (also shown on Figure 5-3); the 16 features identified 

for additional analysis are shown in bold text. All of the features are described and 

shown in Appendix E, Devils Lake Infrastructure, General Information. 

1. Churchs Ferry 

2. City of Devils Lake 

3. Fort Totten 

4. City of Minnewaukan 

5. St. Michael 

6. Gilbert C. Grafton Military Reservation 

7. Grahams Island State Park 

8. Rural Areas 

9. Red River Valley and Western Railroad 

10. Canadian Pacific Railroad 

11. Burlington Northern Railroad (Along US Highway 2) 

12. Burlington Northern Railroad (Churchs Ferry to Cando) 

13. US Highway 2 

14. ND Highway 57 (between ND Highway 20 and BIA Highway 1) 

15. ND Highway 57 (between BIA Highway 1 and US Highway 281) 

16. US Highway 281 (South of US Highway 2) 

5-122
17. US Highway 281 (North of US Highway 2) 

18. ND Highway 19 

19. ND Highway 1 

20. ND Highway 20 (North of City of Devils Lake) 

21. ND Highway 20 (City of Devils Lake Dike to ND Highway 57) 

22. ND Highway 20 (ND Highway 57 to Tokio) 

23. BIA Highway 1 

24. BIA Highway 6 

Scope of the Additional Analysis

For the 16 features identified as needing action in the near future, a more detailed and 

comprehensive examination of various flood protection measures and their comparative 

costs was made, at the first action level. The more detailed analysis was done to provide 

an updated and more accurate appraisal of both the costs and benefits of providing flood 

protection for the 16 features. The study took into account environmental costs, 

geological and geotechnical considerations, local hydrology and its effects on providing 

flood protection, and gave a more uniform assessment of the costs for planning and 

design, supervision and administration, and operations and maintenance. It also included 

a more detailed examination of costs related to real estate acquisition, and refined the 

determination of unit costs for construction materials. 

The study identified potential Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste (HTRW) sites, 

cultural sites, and environmental resources in the project areas. Existing information was 

used to perform this portion of the study, as time did not allow field surveys to be 

conducted. 

Flood damages were also examined in more detail for the 16 features. Potential floodrelated damages to roads, railways, and structures (including residential, commercial, and 

park buildings, as well as some community infrastructure) were reassessed, and the 

listings of flood-related damages were updated to more accurately reflect the situation in 

2002. The study identified the lake elevations at which the features would actually suffer 

flood-related damages. 

The lake levels at which cost and damages would be incurred was reevaluated. 

Assessments were provided as to the time that would be required for planning and design, 

and for construction of the flood control measures for each of the features. These times 

were used in conjunction with the probability of lake level rises during these times in 

order to identify lake levels at which flood protection activities must commence, and 

when they must be completed. 

For more details of the analysis for each feature, please refer to the report Devils Lake 

Infrastructure Protection Study, January 2003. 

5-123
Extent of Detailed Analysis

Although the new analysis focused on the first action level for infrastructure features that 

would be impacted at lake elevations below 1454 feet msl, for some features, actions that 

might be taken at higher levels influence what is the best solution for action at the first 

action level. The features were therefore sorted into Single Action Level Features that 

required a focus only on the first increment of protection, and Multiple Action Level 

Features that required analysis throughout all possible lake levels. 

Single Action Level Features 

Of the original list of 24 features, 16 had action levels in the specified range for inclusion 

in the more detailed study. Of those 16 features, 13 were seen to have only one available 

strategy (among the strategies analyzed previously) for flood protection. For these 

features, the first increment of flood protection (flood protection performed at the first 

action level) could be analyzed independently of successive protection increments that 

would be required for lake levels above 1454. Therefore, the study only performed 

detailed analysis of the first action level. For an analysis of the infrastructure protection 

around Devils Lake as a whole, the action levels at higher lake levels were evaluated, too, 

but at a lower level of detail. The single action level features are listed below: 

Single Action Level Features 

Feature 

Number Feature Name

1 Churchs Ferry

2 City of Devils Lake 

6 Gilbert C. Grafton State Military Reservation 

7 Grahams Island State Park 

8 Rural Areas

10 Canadian Pacific Railroad 

11 Burlington Northern Railroad (along US Highway 

2) 

16 US Highway 281 (South of US Highway 2) 

17 US Highway 281 (North of US Highway 2) 

19 ND Highway 1 

22 ND Highway 20 (ND Highway 57 to Tokio) 

23 BIA Highway 1 

24 BIA Highway 6 

5-124
Multiple Action Level Features 

Three of the sixteen features had multiple flood protection strategies that were considered 

viable. By contrast to the single action level features, for these three features it was also 

necessary to analyze the effects of decisions made at action levels above 1454 in order to 

determine the most economical action at the first action level. Analysis of these three 

features entailed a comparison of the net benefits of each available strategy so as to 

determine which had the largest net benefits. That strategy was then analyzed further to 

determine the net benefits of proceeding with flood protection measures at just the first 

action level – as was done with the single action-level features. The multiple action-level 

features are listed below: 

Multiple Action Level Features 

Feature 

Number Feature Name

3 Fort Totten

4 Minnewaukan

5 St. Michael

Lake Levels and Flood Protection Decisions

The decision-making process for flood protection was analyzed as it relates to rising lake 

levels. For decisions regarding flood protection, five elevations can be important, 

depending on the flood protection situation at the feature being considered. These 

decision-critical elevations are described in the following sections. These elevations 

were used to determine the lake levels at which costs and damages are incurred at the 

yearly time steps for which lake levels are computed in the economics model. They also 

provide trigger elevations at which projects should be initiated. 

Low Structure Elevation 

The low structure elevation is the elevation of the lowest point on a structure (building, 

highway, railway, levee, etc.) at which water-induced damage would occur. This 

elevation must be identified in order to make decisions regarding flood protection for the 

structure. 

In most cases, the low structure elevation is that of the lowest element of the feature. For 

a group of homes, for example, the low structure elevation is taken as the ground 

elevation at the lowest home in the group. For railroads, highways, and levees, it will be 

the lowest point on the top of the structure (top of levee, roadway surface, top of rail) for 

the section in consideration. 

Lake Damage Elevation 

5-125
At some lake elevation, water damage to the structure will begin to occur. The lake 

damage elevation can generally be expected to be lower than the low structure elevation. 

This is because waves and wave run-up will cause damage even when the (mean) lake 

surface elevation is below that of the low structure elevation. In the case of roads, the 

damage elevation was assumed to occur when the lake is 3 feet from the top of the lowest 

point in the road. For the railroads, the damage elevation is assumed to be 4 feet from the 

top of the rail. For rural features, such as homes and farm outbuildings, damages were 

assumed to occur when the lake came within 1 foot of the low structure elevation. 

For levees, the top of the levee is determined by adding a freeboard height above the 

design high water surface in order to prevent overtopping of the levee by waves. The 

chances of failure due to wave run-up and overtopping vary for water levels throughout 

the freeboard range from very, very low at the design high water surface elevation to 

certainty when water levels are at the levee top. For the purposes of this analysis, the 

lake damage elevation was assumed to occur when the lake surface level was one half of 

the freeboard height from the top of the levee. 

Project Completion Elevation 

The flood protection project should be completed before the lake level actually reaches 

the lake damage elevation. In most cases, this is to ensure that construction activities are 

not hampered by or prevented by water at the construction site. The project completion 

elevation will depend on the specifics of the construction considerations for the project in 

question (levee, road raise, etc.). It would not be greater than the lake damage elevation. 

For levees, it would be at the design high water surface for the levee. 

Construction Initiation Elevation 

Construction of the flood protection project should be completed before a feature is 

damaged by rising lake levels. The construction initiation elevation depends on the 

estimate of the time required for construction, and the probability of the lake rising to the 

protection level of the project within that time. 

For roads, railroads, and rural features, the construction initiation elevation is assumed to 

occur within the same one-year analysis time step used in the economics model that the 

lake damage elevation occurs at. Rural features, such as homes and farm outbuildings, 

can be relocated quickly after the lake reached the damage elevation, which is 1 foot 

below the low structure elevation for this analysis. Roads and railroad embankments can 

also be raised reasonably quickly. And the consequences of the lake rising quickly and 

overtopping the road or railroad, if the rate of rise was faster than the embankment raise, 

are only temporary loss of use of that feature. For this reason, it is considered more 

economical to wait until damage is imminent for these types of features than to construct 

raises that may not be needed. 

5-126
For the levees, if the lake level rises faster than the speed of construction, overtopping 

and failure of the levee will occur, which could result in very large amounts of property 

damages. It also has the potential for creating hazards to personal safety for those behind 

the levee. Based on this concern, it was determined that the goal for a Federal flood 

protection project should be to provide protection so that there is less than a 1-percent 

chance that the lake level will exceed the design elevation of the levee (top of levee 

minus the freeboard for wave run-up). In order to do this, the flood control project 

construction must begin at or below lake levels at which there is a 1-percent chance of a 

lake rise reaching the design level of the levees, in the length of time needed for 

construction. To compute this, curves were prepared of the 1-percent chance of lake rise 

over periods of time beginning at different starting lake elevations. Knowing the design 

level of the levee and the expected length of the construction period, the lake level at 

which construction should be initiated can be determined from these curves. The curves 

used are shown on Figure 5-46. 

1445

1446

1447

1448

1449

1450

1451

1452

1453

1454

1455

1456

1457

1458

1459

1460

1461

1462

1463

1464

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Year

Elevation (ft. msl)

1446

1448

1450

1452

1454

1456

1458

1459

Figure 5-46: Cumulative Exceedance Levels for Devils Lake for 1 Percent 

Probability (Starting Water Surface Date = 01 Oct.) 

Project Initiation Elevation 

In order for the flood damage protection project to be completed by the time that the lake 

elevation reaches the project completion elevation, planning and design activities must 

begin at a time when the lake level is below the construction initiation level. The lake 

level at which planning and design activities must occur will depend on the lead time 

required for the particular project. The time required can be determined in a manner 

similar to that used to determine the Construction Initiation Elevation. 

5-127
Flood Protection Actions for Individual Features

Following is a description of the flood protection measures found to be the most 

economically beneficial for each of the 16 features that were analyzed. More description 

and drawings of the individual features can be found in Appendix E, “Devils Lake 

Infrastructure, General Information.” 

Feature 1: Churchs Ferry 

The Infrastructure Protection Study’s analysis for Churchs Ferry considered one 

incremental flood protection strategy. At the first action level (lake elevation 1451 feet), 

relocation was the only strategy that was feasible both from an economic and a 

constructibility standpoint. The strategy involved relocation of three residences, a 

church, fire hall, City Hall, post office, repair shop, bar, school buildings, Masonic 

Lodge, a City shop, and a railroad maintenance building. The existing sewage lagoons 

serve the three residences and the remaining buildings. The single flood-protection 

strategy analyzed for Churchs Ferry (relocation of structures) would require action before 

the water rises to 1452 and overtops the sewage ponds. 

Feature 2: City of Devils Lake 

The most economical protection strategy for the City of Devils Lake was found to be 

incremental levee raises. For the incremental levee raise strategy, the existing levees 

need to be raised to provide continued protection of the City of Devils Lake against 

flooding. The lake level identified as the Construction Initiation level is 1448 feet msl 

for the levees with a design high water level of 1454 feet msl. Besides directly raising 

these levees, there are several locations where it will also be necessary to build smaller 

levees to connect to high ground and maintain the integrity of the levee that protects the 

City of Devils Lake. 

A separate January 2002 study by Barr Engineering Company, entitled the City of Devils 

Lake Alternative Alignment Study, analyzed the levee tiebacks and various alternative 

levee alignments to raise the level of protection for the City of Devils Lake to a design 

lake elevation of 1454, or top of levee (TOL) elevation of 1460. These levee sections 

would be constructed concurrently with any future raises of the existing levees, unless an 

alternative alignment is selected for construction. Plans and specifications for the levee 

raises of the Stage 1A, Stage 2A, tiebacks, and baseline alignments are scheduled for 

completion in the spring of 2003. 

Feature 3: Fort Totten 

Flood protection options considered for Fort Totten included the following: 

1. Construction of levees to protect structures along the northeast side of Fort Totten. 

Construction of the levees would also include relocation of one isolated structure. 

Extending the levee to protect this house would require an additional 500 feet of levee. 

5-128
2. Relocation of the affected residences.

3. Relocation of the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve structures. 

The levee option was found to be very expensive relative to the property that it protects, 

and would require the operation and maintenance of a permanent pumping station. The 

most economical strategy is relocation of affected structures. The work at the first action 

level would be to relocate one residence and all of the Sullys Hill facilities and Sullys 

Hill access road at a lake elevation of 1448 feet msl. 

Feature 4: City of Minnewaukan 

Flood protection options considered for the City of Minnewaukan included the following: 

1. Construction of levees to protect the City of Minnewaukan. The levees would tie into 

high ground near the reroute location for US Highway 281 (South of US Highway 2), and 

would allow access to the city through the existing roadway system. Construction of the 

levees would also include relocation of isolated structures, such as the county fairground 

buildings and a few isolated structures in the levee footprint. 

2. Relocation of all affected structures (including the homes severed from the main 

land). 

The most economical flood protection strategy for Minnewaukan is incremental levee 

protection. At the first action level, the construction initiation lake level would be1451 

feet for levees with a top of levee elevation of 1460 feet msl and the design protection 

level would be 1456 feet msl. A permanent pumping station would also be constructed. 

A few structures exist below elevation 1451 that would require protection by emergency 

levees or relocation at lake levels below 1451. 

Feature 5: St. Michael 

Flood protection options considered for St. Michael included the following: 

1. Construction of a levee to protect the most vulnerable (north) part of town. The levee 

would protect 10 residences and access to 16 other homes. The sewage lagoons would 

still need to be relocated along with construction of a lift station (for the north sewage 

lagoon) to maintain service to the existing homes. 

2. Relocation of the town’s sewage lagoons and the affected residences.

Because of the topography around St. Michael, the base of a levee would have to be 

located where the ground is at elevation 1450, and would be quite expensive relative to 

the value of the homes, which have a low structure elevation of 1460 or higher. 

Therefore, the most economical flood protection strategy is incremental relocations. The 

5-129
first increment of protection would be to relocate the North Sewage Lagoon at a lake 

elevation of 1447. 

Feature 6: Gilbert C. Grafton Military Reserve 

The most economical flood protection strategy for this feature was found to be 

incremental relocations and raises of the entrance road. The first action would be 

relocation of the munitions facility at the current lake level. 

Feature 7: Grahams Island State Park 

Flood protection options considered for Grahams Island State Park included the 

following: 

1. Relocation of buildings. 

2. Relocation / replacement of comfort station and lift station. 

3. Relocation / replacement of a picnic area.

4. Road raise on access road from ND Highway 19.

Other options considered included developing an alternate access road to the south of 

Grahams Island across Ziebach Pass. However, the costs of this option were far greater 

than raising the existing access from Highway 19, and were therefore not considered 

further. The first action level of flood protection would be at the current lake level where 

the access road would be raised. 

Feature 8: Rural Features 

Relocation is the only protection strategy considered for rural structures. Structures 

included in the analysis included the following: 

1. Houses (on-reservation).

2. Houses (off-reservation).

3. Barns (including larger prefabricated metal buildings as well as timber barns).

4. Sheds (including machine and tractor storage buildings and smaller pre-fabricated 

structures).

5-130
5. Silos (including grain storage bins and silos).

6. Churches.

7. Commercial and Industrial buildings (stores, commercial, and public buildings).

In addition, land damages and costs were considered in this investigation. Relocations 

would be conducted as needed if the lake continues to rise. 

Feature 10: Canadian Pacific Railroad 

The current low rail elevation is 1450; however, the railroad is currently out of service 

due to damage that has already occurred due to damage of the railroad embankments by 

high water. The only available incremental flood protection strategy, apart from

abandonment, is repairing and incrementally raising the railroad. Work at the first action 

level at the current lake level would be a raise of the railroad to a top of rail elevation of 

1458. 

Feature 11: Burlington Northern Railroad (Along US Highway 2) 

The analysis of the Burlington Northern Railroad (along US Highway 2) considered one 

flood protection strategy (apart from abandonment). At the first action level, that flood 

protection strategy was the only strategy that was feasible both from an economic and a 

constructibility standpoint. The strategy involved raising the rail line from a top of rail 

elevation of 1456 feet msl to an elevation of 1467 feet msl. This would allow for a 

maximum lake elevation of 1463 with 4 feet of freeboard. Incremental raises of this rail 

line were not feasible due to the high cost of raising the two bridges and the impacts of 

repeated closures of this line. The construction initiation lake level for this feature is 

elevation 1450 feet msl. 

Feature 16: US Highway 281 (South of US Highway 2) 

The North Dakota Department of Transportation is currently planning to realign US 

Highway 281 (South of US Highway 2) to provide protection to this feature up to lake 

level 1463. The realignment will place most of US Highway 281 (South of US 

Highway 2) outside of the maximum flood extents of the lake. In the areas where the 

existing ground is below 1465, the highway will be constructed to a minimum elevation 

of 1465. 

Feature 17: US Highway 281 (North of US Highway 2) 

The North Dakota Department of Transportation plans to raise US Highway 281 north of 

US Highway 2 and south of Cando from a minimum road surface elevation of 1454 to a 

minimum elevation of 1457.4. The roadway embankment will also be widened along the 

entire length (below 1465) to accommodate potential future raises up to road surface 

5-131
elevation 1465 without requiring fill placement below water. The construction initiation 

level for this feature is a lake elevation of 1451 feet msl. 

Feature 19: ND Highway 1 

Included in the study because the road crossed Stump Lake at a minimum elevation of 

1410 feet msl. The general protection strategy for this feature consists of a road 

relocation to the east side of Stump Lake with a minimum road elevation of 1464 feet 

msl. This work was completed in 2002. 

Feature 22: ND Highway 20 (ND Highway 57 to Tokio) 

The study of ND Highway 20 (ND Highway 57 to Tokio) considered one incremental 

flood protection strategy (apart from abandonment) for ND Highway 20 (ND Highway 

57 to Tokio). At the first action level, that flood protection strategy would be the only 

strategy that would be feasible both from an economic and a constructibility standpoint. 

The strategy would involve raising the road from a minimum road surface elevation of 

1445 to a minimum elevation of 1457.5. This constitutes a 5-foot raise for the majority 

of the roadway being raised and a 13.5-foot raise for the 2,000-foot section with the 

current road surface at 1445. The construction initiation elevation of the road raise 

would be at the current lake level. 

Feature 23: BIA Highway 1 

The study for BIA Highway 1 considered one incremental flood protection strategy (apart 

from abandonment) for BIA Highway 1. At the first action level, that flood protection 

strategy was the only strategy that was feasible both from an economic and a 

constructibility standpoint. The strategy involved raising the road 5 feet to a minimum

road surface elevation of 1456.

Feature 24: BIA Highway 6 

The BIA started construction of a raise to the low section of Feature 24 in the fall of 

2002. The construction involved raising 4,700 feet of BIA Highway 6 from a minimum

road surface elevation of 1440 feet msl to a minimum elevation of 1456.9 feet msl. The 

roadway embankment will also be widened along that length to accommodate potential 

future raises up to a road surface elevation of 1465 feet msl without requiring fill 

placement below water. The construction initiation lake level for a road raise at the next 

action level would be at elevation 1454.

Summary of More Detailed Analysis at First Action Level

The following tables summarize the results of this study for the first action level for the 

16 features that were analyzed in detail. Table 5-19 summarizes the economics results. 

Table 5-20 summarizes the decision critical lake levels for the 16 features analyzed in 

detail. 

5-132
Table 5-19: Most Likely Future Without Project – Summary of Economics Analysis 

Flood Protection Strategies at First Action Level 

Feature

Number Feature Name

Flood Protection

Strategy Having

Largest Net 

Benefits

Total First 

Costs for 

First Action 

Level

Damages 

Prevented

Annual

Damages 

Prevented2

Average 

Annual Net 

Benefits3

BenefitCost

Ratio

Average 

Annual Net

Benefits3

BenefitCost

Ratio

1 Churchs Ferry Relocation of All

Structures Below

1468

 $ 1,946,000 $ 1,479,000 -- $ (6,100) 0.76 $ (22,400) 0.76

2 City of Devils Lake One Incremental

Levee Raise

 $ 6,327,000 $223,729,000 -- $ 1,294,000 5.74 $ 10,392,400 29.46

3 Fort Totten One Incremental

Relocation

 $ 4,753,000 $ 3,638,000 -- $ (19,900) 0.77 $ (60,200) 0.77

4 City of

Minnewaukan

One Incremental

Levee Raise

 $ 11,298,000 $ 10,493,000 -- $ (23,600) 0.85 $ (62,000) 0.89

5 St. Michael One Incremental

Relocation

 $ 582,000 $ 409,000 -- $ (10,500) 0.70 $ (10,500) 0.70

6 Gilbert C. Grafton 

Military

Reservation

Relocation of All

Structures

 $ 1,514,000 $ 970,000 -- $ (33,000) 0.64 $ (33,100) 0.64

7 Grahams Island 

State Park

One Incremental

Road Raise

 $ 5,668,000 $ 531,000 $ 516,000 $ (67,500) 0.80 $ 173,000 1.50

8.1 Devils Lake Rural 

Areas

Five Incremental

Relocations

 $ 23,511,000 $ 17,055,000 -- $ (218,500) 0.72 $ (359,500) 0.72

8.2 Stump Lake Rural

Areas

Eight Incremental

Relocations

 $ 2,982,000 $ 1,960,000 -- $ (22,900) 0.66 $ (53,100) 0.66

10 Canadian Pacific 

Railroad

One Incremental

Rail Raise

 $ 23,234,000 -- $ 533,000 $ (654,500) 0.54 $ (1,193,600) 0.16

11 Burlington

Northern Railroad 

(along US 

Raise Rail to

Maximum Level

 $ 48,583,000 -- $ 4,333,000 $ (62,600) 0.87 $ 1,060,300 1.48

16 US Highway 281 

(South of US

Highway 2)

Relocation of Road $ 46,031,000 -- $ 3,861,000 $ 315,600 1.11 $ 2,733,000 1.98

17 US Highway 281 

(North of US

Highway 2)

One Incremental

Road Raise

 $ 9,953,000 -- $ 1,403,000 $ (15,300) 0.88 $ (207,000) 0.57

19 ND Highway 1 - NA - -- -- -- - NA - - NA - - NA - - NA - 

22 ND Highway 20

(between ND 

Highway 57 and 

Tokio)

One Incremental

Road Raise

 $ 17,858,000 -- $ 611,000 $ (532,300) 0.51 $ (826,000) 0.24

23 BIA Highway 1 One Incremental

Road Raise

 $ 3,004,000 -- $ 1,012,000 $ 161,900 2.27 $ 125,300 1.73

24 BIA Highway 6 - NA - -- -- -- - NA - - NA - - NA - - NA - 

Notes

1 Total first costs are actual flood protection costs, in present value. Values for damages and annual damages are also listed in present value

2

3 The net benefits listed were averaged over 10,000 traces. The averages were then annualized over a 50-year period.

Present Worth1

Stochastic

Analysis

Wet Future

Scenario Analysis

Annual damages prevented during years that the feature would have been damaged by the lake. The benefit of avoiding restoration 

damages (damages registered when a previously inundated road or railroad is repaired and made ready for use again) is not represented 

5-133
Table 5-20: Most Likely Future Without Project – Lake Levels for Flood Protection 

Action, Flood Protection Strategies at First Action Level 

Feature 

Number Feature Name

Protection 

Strategy

Having Largest 

Costs for 

First Action 

Level Current 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 Notes

1 Churchs Ferry Relocation of All 

Structures

Below 1468

 $ 1,946,000 PC,L

D

LS

2 City of Devils Lake One Incremental 

Levee Raise

 $ 6,327,000 PI CI PC LD LS

3 Fort Totten One Incremental 

Relocation

 $ 4,753,000 LD LS

4 City of

Minnewaukan

One Incremental 

Levee Raise

 $11,298,000 PI CI, LD LS PC Temporary

Protection of

Low Homes

5 St. Michael One Incremental 

Relocation

 $ 582,000 PI, CI, 

PC, LD

LS

6 Gilbert C. Grafton 

Military Reservation

Relocation of All 

Structures

 $ 1,514,000 PI, CI, 

PC, LD, 

LS

Protected by

Roads Acting

as Dams

7 Grahams Island 

State Park

One Incremental 

Road Raise

 $ 5,668,000 PI, CI, 

PC, LD

LS

8.1 Devils Lake Rural 

Areas

Five Incremental 

Relocations

 $23,511,000 Broad Range 

of Elevations

8.2 Stump Lake Rural

Areas

Eight 

Incremental 

Relocations

 $ 2,982,000 Broad Range 

of Elevations

10 Canadian Pacific

Railroad

One Incremental 

Rail Raise

 $23,234,000 PI, CI, 

PC, LD

LS

11 Burlington Northern

Railroad (along US

Highway 2)

Raise Rail to 

Maximum Level

 $48,583,000 PI CI, LD LS

16 US Highway 281 

(South of US 

Highway 2)

Relocation of

Road

 $46,031,000 PI, CI, 

LD

LS

17 US Highway 281 

(North of US

Highway 2)

One Incremental 

Road Raise

 $ 9,953,000 PI CI, LD LS

19 ND Highway 1 - NA - -- LS=1465, 

Has been 

relocated

22 ND Highway 20 

(between ND 

Highway 57 and 

Tokio)

One Incremental 

Road Raise

 $17,858,000 PI, CI, 

PC, LD, 

LS

Protected by

Roads Acting

as Dams

LS=1445

23 BIA Highway 1 One Incremental 

Road Raise

 $ 3,004,000 PI CI, LD LS

24 BIA Highway 6 - NA - -- Being raised 

to LS=1457

LS = Low Structure, LD = Lake Damage, PC = Project Completion, CI = Construction Initiation, PI = Project Initiation. 

Notes

1 Total first costs are actual flood protection costs, in present value. Values for damages and annual damages are also listed in present value.

2 Decision-critical elevations are rounded to the nearest foot.

Decision-Critical Lake Elevations2

5-134
Table 5-21: Most Likely Future Without Project – Economics Summary 

Flood Protection Strategies up to Lake Level 1463 

Feature 

Number Feature Name

Flood Protection 

Strategy Having

Largest Net 

Benefits

Total First

Costs

Total Damages 

Prevented

Annual

Damages 

Prevented2

Average 

Annual Net

Benefits3

BenefitCost

Ratio

Average

Annual Net

Benefits3

BenefitCost

Ratio

Lake Level 

of First

Damages

1 Churchs Ferry Relocation of All 

Structures

 $ 1,946,000 $ 1,479,000 -- $ (6,100) 0.76 $ (22,400) 0.76 1451

2 City of Devils Lake Incremental Levee 

Raises

 $ 78,174,000 $ 305,380,000 -- $ 365,200 1.30 $ 6,972,700 2.84 1454.5

3 Fort Totten Incremental

Relocations

 $ 5,367,000 $ 4,086,000 -- $ (20,500) 0.76 $ (65,600) 0.76 1448

4 City of Minnewaukan Incremental Levee 

Raises

 $ 17,605,000 $ 25,042,000 -- $ (25,300) 0.88 $ 149,700 1.17 1452

5 St. Michael Incremental

Relocations

 $ 1,720,000 $ 1,224,000 -- $ (11,700) 0.71 $ (21,200) 0.71 Current4

6 Gilbert C. Grafton 

Military Reservation

Relocation of

Munitions Facility

 $ 1,514,000 $ 970,000 -- $ (33,000) 0.64 $ (33,100) 0.64 Current

7 Grahams Island State 

Park

Incremental Road 

Raises and Structure 

R l ti

 $ 23,764,000 $ 2,718,000 $ 516,000 $ (66,400) 0.86 $ (414,400) 0.59 Current 

8.1 Devils Lake Rural Areas Incremental

Relocations

 $ 79,764,000 $ 58,670,000 -- $ (273,700) 0.72 $ (831,300) 0.73 Current

8.2 Stump Lake Rural Areas Incremental

Relocations

 $ 5,457,000 $ 3,547,000 -- $ (28,700) 0.65 $ (87,700) 0.65 1413

9 Red River Valley and 

Western Railroad

N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- N/A

10 Canadian Pacific

Railroad

Incremental Rail

Raises

 $ 67,260,000 -- $ 533,000 $ (895,900) 0.48 $ (2,646,700) 0.17 Current

11 Burlington Northern 

Railroad (along US

Hi h 2)

Raise Rail to 

Maximum Level

 $ 48,583,000 -- $ 4,333,000 $ (62,600) 0.87 $ 1,060,300 1.48 1452

12 Burlington Northern 

Railroad (Churchs Ferry

to Cando)

Incremental Rail

Raises

 $ 69,394,000 -- $ 509,000 $ (179,100) 0.19 $ (1,595,500) 0.20 1451

13 US Highway 2 Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 152,738,000 -- $ 11,863,000 $ 88,200 1.15 $ 2,298,800 1.47 1452

Present Worth Stochastic Analysis 1 Wet Future Scenario

14 ND Highway 57 

(between ND Highway

20 and BIA Highway 1)

Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 14,274,000 -- $ 13,104,000 $ 646,100 11.57 $ 7,251,000 16.25 1452

15 ND Highway 57 

(between BIA Highway 1 

and US Highway 281)

Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 42,667,000 -- $ 9,488,000 $ 353,400 3.05 $ 4,250,500 4.05 1452

16 US Highway 281 (South 

of US Highway 2)

Relocation of Road $ 46,031,000 -- $ 3,861,000 $ 315,600 1.11 $ 2,733,000 1.98 Current

17 US Highway 281 (North 

of US Highway 2)

Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 38,459,000 -- $ 1,403,000 $ (35,200) 0.85 $ (198,300) 0.86 1451

18 ND Highway 19 Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 101,252,000 -- $ 1,322,000 $ (289,000) 0.29 $ (2,379,100) 0.28 1452

19 ND Highway 1 - NA - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1462

20 ND Highway 20 (North 

of City of Devils Lake)

Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 33,382,000 -- $ 3,375,000 $ (26,200) 0.66 $ (29,100) 0.97 1457

21 ND Highway 20 (City of

Devils Lake Dike to ND

Highway 57)

Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 24,859,000 -- $ 13,104,000 $ 606,900 6.71 $ 6,915,500 9.35 1452

22 ND Highway 20 

(between ND Highway

57 and Tokio)

Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 37,987,000 -- $ 611,000 $ (592,300) 0.50 $ (1,210,800) 0.34 Current

23 BIA Highway 1 Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 11,382,000 -- $ 1,012,000 $ 188,400 2.08 $ 469,100 1.97 1448

24 BIA Highway 65 Incremental Road 

Raises

 $ 8,442,000 -- $ 13,873,000 $ 740,900 35.46 $ 8,016,700 52.59 1453.9

CUMULATIVE 

TOTAL $ 912,021,000 $ 403,116,000 $ 78,907,000 $ 759,000 1.07 $ 30,582,100 1.86

Notes

1 Total first costs are actual flood protection costs, in present value. Values for damages and annual damages are also listed in present value.

2 Annual damages prevented during years that the feature would have been damaged by the lake. The benefit of avoiding restoration damages (damages registered 

when a previously inundated road or railroad is repaired and made ready for use again) is not represented in this table.

3 The net benefits listed were averaged over 10,000 traces. The averages were then annualized over a 50-year period.

4 Currently protected by temporary dikes and roads that are acting as dams.

5 Currently protected by tempoary dikes and roads that are acting as dams, and is being raised to a minimum elevation of 1456.9.

5-135
Summary of Analysis for All Features and All Action Levels

Results of the Most Likely Future Condition for all features and for lake levels up to 

1463 feet are shown in Table 5-21. For the 16 features for which more detailed analysis 

was performed for the first action level, higher action levels were analyzed by combining 

the new work at the first action level with the previous work. For the eight features that 

were not examined in the more detailed analysis, the table presents results of the previous 

analysis. Figure 5-47 is a graph depicting the cumulative infrastructure costs of the 24 

features by elevation. 

Infrastructure Protection Costs by Elevation

1446

1448

1450

1452

1454

1456

1458

1460

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,0

00

Protection Costs (x $1,000)

Elevation

Figure 5-47: Infrastructure Protection Costs by Elevation 

Outlet Plan – Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet (Preferred Alternative) 

For the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet plan, three different design studies were performed 

by Barr Engineering to better define the main components of this feature related to 

moving water from Pelican Lake to the Sheyenne River. The studies were a Feature 

Design Report that evaluated and selected the main components for the outlet, a Feature 

Design Report that evaluated and identified features of the Dry Lake Diversion 

component of the outlet, and a Design Development Report that performed detailed 

design of the main portion of the outlet. 

Additional components of the outlet were identified by other studies performed for the 

outlet. The most important of these studies were the biota transfer study performed by 

5-136
the Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center, and the 

monitoring and mitigation proposal prepared by Peterson Consultants. 

Components

Beginning in the upper basin, the components of the Pelican Lake 300-cfs outlet with 

estimated first costs in parentheses are described as follows: 

A. Dry Lake Diversion 

This component would be a modification of the existing Dry Lake - Channel A project to 

restore a portion of the historic flow of fresh water from Dry Lake to Pelican Lake via a 

chain of lakes and Big Coulee. The lakes included in the chain include Mikes Lake, 

Chain Lake, Lake Alice, and Lake Irvine. Lake Alice is the home of the Lake Alice 

Natural Wildlife Refuge. The Dry Lake Diversion is shown on Figure 5-48. The location 

of the area shown on this map relative to the rest of Devils Lake and the Pelican Lake 

Outlet is indicated on Figure 5-4. 

Figure 5-48: Dry Lake Diversion 

5-137
The introduction of additional water with lower sulfate concentrations to Pelican Lake 

would allow the operation of the proposed Devils Lake Outlet to be more effective and 

feasible in lowering lake levels. For a discussion of the need for this component, please 

refer to the “Sensitivity Analysis of the Incremental Analysis of the Dry Lake Diversion” 

in the section on “Evaluation of Alternatives.” This component would consist of the 

following features: 

1. Construct a channel between Dry Lake and Mikes Lake. A large culvert 

would be required to convey the flow from Dry Lake to Mikes Lake under 75th Avenue 

Northeast. A stop log control structure would be built at the upstream end of the culvert. 

2. Construct an embankment with gated culverts across Channel A downstream

of the existing Channel A control structure. 

3. Perform channel improvements, roadway crossing improvements, and control 

structure improvements in the Chain of Lakes to provide more flow capacity. 

4. Obtain flowage easements around Dry Lake to elevation 1458 and around 

Lake Alice, Chain Lake, and Mikes Lake to elevation 1446. 

5. Establish a discharge gaging station on Big Coulee to provide data for project 

operation. 

6. Conduct cultural resources surveys in flowage easement areas around Dry 

Lake and Chain of Lakes. 

The above diversion plan minimizes the amount of construction required and is the 

lowest cost alternative, but would require a statement of compatibility with the Lake 

Alice National Wildlife Refuge. As an alternate to this plan, a channel directly from

Channel A to Big Coulee was conceptually developed. This plan was estimated to cost 

$13,121,000 and therefore was not selected. However, if the selected plan is determined 

to be incompatible with the Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge, then the alternate 

diversion channel could be implemented instead for a moderate increase in the total 

project cost. 

B. Open Channel 

The open channel would be approximately 7.8 miles long and would convey water from

Pelican Lake to the pump station on the north side of Minnewaukan. Most of the 

alignment is low enough that the length of excavated channel would only be about 

2.6 miles. The excavated portion of the channel would have a bottom width of 25 feet 

and 3 to 1 side slopes. Concrete box culverts would be required where the open channel 

crosses Highway 281 and Schneider’s Crossing (gravel township road north of the pump 

station). The Open channel and all of the main portions of the Outlet are shown on 

Figure 5-49. 

5-138
Figure 5-49: Proposed Devils Lake Outlet 

C. Highway 281 Flow Separation Embankment 

5-139
A separation embankment would be constructed on Highway 281 between Minnewaukan 

and Highway 19, if the Highway Department relocates this stretch of road and does not 

raise it. The embankment would have a top elevation of 1455, sized to fit on top of the 

existing road embankment while still providing erosion protection and enough top width 

to construct and maintain it. Highway 19 would also be used for flow separation, from

Highway 218 to the west edge of Grand Harbor Township. Highway 19 is already at 

elevation 1455. In addition to the embankment, approximately 21 existing culverts under 

Highways 281 and 19 would be plugged to provide more flow separation. When the lake 

returns to lower levels in the future, the culverts could readily be put back in service to 

restore drainage through the road embankment. Costs for this component are included 

with the Inlet Channel in the Cost Summary table. 

D. Pump Station

A pump station located on the northwest side of Minnewaukan would receive water from

the open channel and convey water to the control reservoir located south-southwest out 

of the pump station through the pressure pipeline segments. The pump station would 

include three 100-cfs pumps. The electric motors for the pumps would be almost 

4,000 horsepower, sized to pump against the maximum design head of 240 feet. The 

substructure for the pump station is designed as a conventional reinforced concrete wet 

well-type structure, designed to operate for lake elevations between 1441.5 and 1463. 

The bottom of the wet well would be at elevation 1426 and the top of the concrete 

substructure would be at elevation 1467, higher than any potential lake elevation. 

Because of a very weak layer of soil near the base of the structure, the substructure would 

be founded on short H-piles driven into the pier shale foundation. A combined trash rack 

and fish screen is incorporated into the pump station intake design. The screen would be 

a fixed-type configuration, cleaned by a rake system. A metal superstructure would be 

provided to protect the motors, valves, and operating equipment. Roof hatches would 

provide maintenance access into the pump station for the removal and installation of 

motors and valves. 

E. Ductile Iron Pressure Pipeline 

From the pump station, flow from each pump would be conveyed in three 48-inchdiameter buried ductile iron pipes (DIPs). Like all pipeline on this project, they would be 

buried to frost depth. Compressed air surge tanks would be located at the beginning of 

these pipes to protect the pump station in case of sudden shutdown. The ductile iron 

pipes would run approximately 2.3 miles to the south-southwest where they would 

connect to a concrete transition structure. 

5-140
F. Concrete Pressure Pipeline 

A single 84-inch buried reinforced concrete pressure pipe (RCPP) would extend 

approximately 5.5 miles south-southwest, conveying water from the concrete transition 

structure at the end of the DIP to a sand filtration system at the watershed divide between 

the Devils Lake basin and the Sheyenne River basin. 

G. Sand Filtration System 

The sand filtration system was added late in the analyses to address biota and invasive 

species transfer issues. It is intended to filter much of the organic material from the 

water transferred through the outlet and would be located between the pressure pipeline 

and the control reservoir. Due to its late addition to the design, the filtration system has 

only been conceptually designed at this time. It appears that a gravity-type, deep-bed 

rapid sand filtration system would best meet the requirements of this application. The 

Sand Filtration system is not shown on Figure 5-49, but it would be collocated with the 

control reservoir. It would consist of the following features: 

1. Filter Tanks: The filters would be open-air tanks constructed of concrete using 

common wall construction. The conceptual design assumes a layout of two filter trains 

consisting of seven filters in each train, each approximately 1,000 square feet in area. 

2. Media: For this conceptual design, it was assumed that a dual-media filter bed would 

provide the most efficient filtration. The dual-media filter bed would consist of a layer of 

coarser anthracite coal on top of a layer of finer silica sand. This type of system

encourages better penetration of solids and thus better bed utilization. Additional 

analyses would be required prior to the final media selection. 

3. Underdrain System: An underdrain system would be placed below the media to 

collect the filtrate. It is assumed that the underdrain system would not be placed in a 

gravel bed, but rather constructed as part of the floor system to allow for combined airwater backwashing of the filtration media. The filtered effluent would be conveyed via a 

common effluent manifold to a clear well. 

4. Clear Well: A clear well would be required to provide an adequate supply of clean 

water to backwash the filters. The treated filter effluent would be used to backwash the 

filters and an overflow weir would be used to provide submergence for the backwash 

pumps. The effluent from the clear well would discharge to the control reservoir through 

an 84-inch RCPP. It is assumed that the clear well would be constructed of cast-in-place 

concrete and would include a building for housing the backwash pumps. 

5. Backwashing System: It was assumed that the filtration system would use combined 

air-water backwash. The backwashing system would obtain supply water from the clear 

well and a blower would supply the required airflow. Two 15,000-gpm vertical turbine 

pumps would provide the backwash water from the clear well. Backwash events would 

5-141
be controlled by water levels in the filter cells. The backwash water would be treated on 

site. 

6. Backwash Water Treatment: The backwash water would be routed to one of two 

70-foot-diameter clarifiers. The clarifiers would have center pier rake assembly for 

sludge collection. The clarifier would provide solids removal from the backwash water 

through gravity settling. The clarified effluent would be routed back to the sand filtration 

system influent by one of two clarifier effluent booster pumps for treatment prior to 

discharge to the control reservoir. Sludge that settles in the clarifier would be removed 

from the bottom of the clarifiers as needed by sludge pumps and discharged to sludge 

drying beds for dewatering. 

7. Sludge Drying Beds: Sludge drying beds would be constructed on nearby available 

land for dewatering of the backwash sludge. Based on the estimated 16,300 pounds per 

day of solids, it is anticipated that the sludge drying bed area required would be 395,000 

square feet per year. Assuming the beds are cleaned once every 2 years, the total area 

required would be 790,000 square feet. 

8. Controls: The system controls would be housed in a structure located between the 

filter trains. The structure would also house the blower required for the backwash system. 

H. Control Reservoir 

A control reservoir is located at the high point along the outlet route, providing a point 

where flow rate to the Sheyenne River is controlled. The large pumps at the pump station 

would be alternately started and stopped to obtain a desired average flow rate. The 

reservoir has been sized to attenuate the flow surges produced by the alternately running 

pumps into a relatively smooth flow output. The sand filtration system located 

immediately upstream of the control reservoir would not be expected to appreciably 

attenuate the flows. To minimize the number of starts required for the very large pumps 

and motors, the reservoir provides water storage and flow control in three separate cells. 

The reservoir area would be contained by earthen side berms that make the total reservoir 

land area approximately 84 acres. 

I. Concrete Gravity Pipeline 

Approximately 6.5 miles of buried RCPP would extend from the reservoir, conveying 

water to the Sheyenne River. The route generally follows the alignment of Peterson 

Coulee. The pipe would vary in diameter from 84 inches in diameter on the flat upper 

reaches of the alignment to 66 inches in diameter in the steeper reaches along the bottom

of Peterson Coulee. At the end of this pipe, flow would discharge into a 90-foot-long 

steel plate arch structure that would provide for expansion and slowing of the water as it 

enters the river. 

J. Sheyenne River Gaging Stations 

5-142
Gaging stations upstream and downstream of the discharge point on the Sheyenne River 

would provide the monitoring needed for project operation. Costs for this component are 

included with the Pump Station in the Cost Summary table. 

K. Modification of Low-Head Dams on the Sheyenne River 

There are 14 low-head, weir type dams on the Sheyenne River between the insertion 

point of the outlet and the Red River. The low-head dams should not pose a dam safety 

threat in the sense of dam failure, sending a surge of water downstream, but at times they 

may be dangerous for persons or livestock with respect to drowning. The drowning 

hazard caused by the "roller effect" on the downstream side of most of the low-head 

dams is already a problem during higher flows and would likely be worse due to the 

outlet because of the longer duration of higher flows. To mitigate safety concerns 

created by the larger “roller,” 10 dams would be modified by placing rock fill on their 

downstream side at a slope of four on one. These 10 dams would be all of the dams

between the insertion point and the City of Lisbon, North Dakota, that do not currently 

have sloping faces on their downstream side. There are three dams in the lower 

Sheyenne River near West Fargo, North Dakota, that would not be included because they 

are far enough downstream from the outlet that the flow increase would be minor and 

higher flows are mitigated by the presence of the Horace to West Fargo Diversion. In 

addition to the rock fill in the river below the dam, it is assumed that some riprap erosion 

protection would be added to the abutments on each side of the dam to control erosion 

created by the additional flows from the outlet. 

L. Flowage Easements on the Sheyenne River 

The outlet would be operated so that the discharge from the outlet would create total 

flows in the Sheyenne River of no more than 600 cfs. This flow rate would result in outof-bank flooding on approximately 3,500 acres. Flowage easements would need to be 

purchased on lands that were flooded at 600 cfs and are not part of mitigation features. 

This would result in a requirement to purchase flowage easements on 1,880 acres. 

M. Environmental Mitigation on the Sheyenne River

1. Terrestrial Mitigation: Hydrologic modeling of the Pelican Lake 300-cfs constrained 

outlet suggests that increased flooding, erosion, groundwater levels, and/or soil 

salinization related to the discharge would affect approximately 6,000 acres. Although 

the river would not be expected to flood regularly during project operation due to 

constraints on flow imposed by channel capacity, it would frequently overflow into 

adjacent low meander cutoffs and oxbow lakes, and groundwater levels would increase. 

Because the upper Sheyenne is less deeply entrenched than the portion of the river below 

Baldhill Dam and is more susceptible to flooding and elevated groundwater, threequarters of the predicted impact area would lie above Lake Ashtabula. Mitigation for 

groundwater effects to terrestrial resources would include the fee title acquisition and 

5-143
management of approximately 6,000 acres of riparian lands along the Sheyenne River. 

Management measures would include plantings, fencing, transplanting, food plots, 

wildlife structures, etc. 

2. Aquatic Habitat Preservation Through the Creation of Cutoffs Across Meanders:

The goal of this feature is to maintain enough diversity of habitat to allow post-outlet 

operation to reestablish pre-outlet operation communities. It is recognized that the 

diverse habitat types in the Sheyenne River are key to the existence of diverse species in 

the river. Of particular concern is the potential loss of riffle-pool habitat. Therefore, this 

feature will provide for the continued existence of this critical habitat type. 

Nine sites have been identified on the upper Sheyenne River to accomplish this. The 

sites were selected in areas already chosen for terrestrial mitigation where a high length 

of bypass to length of natural channel could be obtained. The sites avoid the following: 

existing structures or other developed areas, including roads; the outer edge of existing 

meanders, to reduce the likelihood that future river migration would merge the natural 

and artificial channels; and wooded areas. 

A conceptual design was developed to determine features that could be used to 

implement the mitigation plan. Exact features would need to be developed for each 

specific site in a later design phase. The features are: 

a. An embankment control structure across the river at the head of the meander. 

It would be approximately 7 or 8 feet high with approximately two 48-inch-diameter 

concrete pipes through its base. 

b. An earthen bypass channel extending from upstream of the Sheyenne River 

control structure to the downstream end of the meander. 

c. An embankment control structure at the head of the bypass channel with 

approximately six 48-inch-diameter concrete pipes through its base. This embankment 

would extend at least to the height of the floodplain. The invert of these pipes would be 

located at the same elevation as the top of the two pipes in the Sheyenne River control 

structure. 

d. A riprap and/or sheet pile erosion control structure at the downstream end of 

the bypass channel. 

The intent of this feature is to maintain a flow regime in the existing meander similar to 

what currently exists. These features will permit low flows to pass through the Sheyenne 

River control structure and continue down the existing Sheyenne River channel. For 

intermediate flows between approximately 100 and 600 cfs that are expected to exist with 

much greater frequency under outlet operation, a substantial portion of the flow would 

pass down the bypass channel. For flows above 600 cfs, which would be naturally 

occurring flood flows, the Sheyenne River control structure would be overtopped and a 

substantial amount of flow would go in the existing river channel. The flow in the 

5-144
natural channel would increase as the river flow increases above 600 cfs since the bypass 

channel embankment would prevent flow in the bypass channel except for what passes 

through the pipes, as long as the river flow is below bank-full conditions. 

3. Erosion Protection: The increased flow resulting from the proposed pumping 

alternative would cause increased river stages and duration of inundation. This change 

may result in an increased rate of erosion in certain sections of the river and could have a 

detrimental effect on some forms of riparian vegetation. In addition to weakening of the 

banks due to vegetative loss, increased shear stresses and velocities along the bed and 

banks may increase the rate of bank erosion. The Sheyenne River is currently in a state 

of quasi-equilibrium or stability. The significant changes in the timing and magnitude of

flow caused by the proposed 300-cfs diversion would likely force the Sheyenne River to 

an unstable state. In addition to erosion, this operational change could result in an 

increase in sediment transport and deposition. 

Erosion protection measures, for sites identified as high potential, consisting of a 

combination of riprap, bioengineering, and other structural measures, are proposed on 

23 sites located downstream of the insertion point and downstream of Baldhill Dam. The 

purpose of the erosion protection would be to minimize the turbidity and sedimentation 

that would occur at any particular location, which would reduce impacts to aquatic 

resources. 

N. Environmental Monitoring in Devils Lake and the Red River Basin

Mitigative measures are included to help avoid/minimize impacts through project design. 

Where unavoidable impacts occur, mitigation is proposed to facilitate the recovery of the 

system after the project ceases operation. Monitoring is proposed to further quantify 

unknown effects and determine if modifications to the mitigation measures are required. 

The following monitoring is proposed: 

• Collection of data for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, salinity, 

turbidity, chloride, and total dissolved solids at 15 locations in the outlet 

channel, the Sheyenne River, and the Red River of the North. 

• Yearly population surveys of known rare plant sites in the area of potential 

impact. 

• Establishment of approximately 30 sites distributed proportionally in each of 

the general vegetative communities in the area of potential effect and 

collection of data yearly during the period of operation to track changes in 

vegetative community composition. 

• Collection of fish in three locations in the Sheyenne River and testing for 

mercury levels. 

• Sampling of soil chemistry along 16 transects in each of 6 soil associations in 

the area of potential impact. 

• Sampling of groundwater chemistry at four locations in the area of potential 

impact. 

5-145
• Determination and tracking of soil salinity levels along 20 transects in 

cropped and hayed areas highly susceptible to adverse salinization impacts. 

• Collection of aquatic habitat and community data at 18 locations along the 

Sheyenne River. 

• Monthly sampling during the pumping season for potentially invasive biota in 

the Pelican Lake outlet channel and the Red River basin. 

• Yearly surveys of cultural resource sites in the area of potential impact, using 

canoe and foot-based inventories in alternating years. 

• Yearly evaluation of Valley City Fish Hatchery infrastructure. 

The monitoring protocol would be modified as necessary based on the results of the 

previous monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring would be used to modify the mitigation 

features as necessary. 

O. Cultural Mitigation on the Sheyenne River 

Based on the results of a 2000-2001 water-based cutbank reconnaissance survey, there 

are 54 cultural resources sites visibly eroding from the banks of the Sheyenne River 

between the mouth of Peterson Coulee downstream to the Red River of the North. A 

Phase I survey to determine the horizontal limits of each of these sites and Phase II 

testing to determine each site’s physical integrity, vertical extent, and data potential 

would be conducted to evaluate their eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places. Mitigation at those sites that are determined to be eligible for the National 

Register would consist of bank protection and/or data recovery. 

As cutbank monitoring for eroding cultural resources sites would continue over the 

operational life of the Pelican Lake outlet, any additional cultural resources sites exposed 

along the Sheyenne River would be similarly surveyed and evaluated, with bank 

protection being the main form of mitigation for those sites determined eligible for the 

National Register. The cost for this additional mitigation is not, however, included in the 

dollar amount above.

Operation Plan

Operation of Pelican Lake Outlet 

Operation of the Pelican Lake outlet would be limited to a 7-month period (May 1 

through November 30). Operation would also be constrained by conditions in the 

receiving waters of the Sheyenne River. Specifically, pumping operations would be 

constrained at the insertion point to limit flows in the Sheyenne River to no greater than 

600 cfs total flow and to limit sulfate concentrations in the Sheyenne River to no more 

than 300 mg/l. Outlet operation would be curtailed or halted if the flow magnitude or 

water quality criteria were exceeded by blended waters in the Sheyenne River below the 

point of insertion. 

Operational Considerations 

5-146
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the coordination and preparation of an 

Operation Maintenance manual for the project, which is to ensure that project benefits are 

achieved and environmental requirements are met following construction of the project. 

As the expected non-Federal local sponsor for an outlet project, the State of North 

Dakota would be responsible for operation and maintenance of the project. A Devils 

Lake Outlet Management Advisory Committee has already been established by the North 

Dakota State Legislature. The Devils Lake outlet management advisory committee 

consists of the state engineer or the state engineer’s designee, one member appointed by 

the Red River joint resource board, one member appointed by the Devils Lake Joint 

Water Resource Board, one county commissioner from both Ramsey County and Benson 

County, a representative of the Spirit Lake Nation, and three members representing the 

interests of downstream impacts, as appointed by the governor. 

Guidance provided in the State legislation indicates that the committee is to develop an 

annual operating plan for the operation of the Devils Lake outlet. This plan must specify 

the lake elevation at which pumping will take place. In developing the annual operating 

plan, the committee is to consider spring runoff forecasts, weather forecasts, summer 

flooding potential, downstream impacts including water quality and streambank erosion, 

flooding, and any other factors the committee determines should be considered. 

Since the framework for an operating plan is defined as part of the project description, 

there will be limited latitude to refinements of the actual operation, without affecting the 

stage effectiveness of the outlet and downstream impacts. The operating plan for the 

outlet is intended to utilize the maximum discharge capacity of 300 cfs, which would 

operate for 7 months, from the beginning of May through the end of November. The 

flows would be constrained so that the total combined discharge with the Sheyenne River 

would not exceed 600 cfs and the sulfate levels would not exceed 300 mg/l, both at the 

insertion point. Modeling for project impacts assumes this plan would be implemented 

whenever the Devils Lake stages exceed elevation 1443.0. Variations from this plan 

would require evaluation prior to implementation to assure that reduction of stage 

effectiveness or increase of any downstream impacts would not be significant. Also, 

Federal agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Geological Survey, as well as the State of Minnesota and Canada, need to be 

consulted on changes in the operation of the project. 

Although the Corps of Engineers would assume responsibility for establishment of 

instrumentation and operational equipment to assure that the discharges do not exceed the 

specified constraints, the involvement of this management advisory committee would be 

essential. Besides the issues of outlet operation, this committee, with consultation from

the Federal agencies, would also be instrumental in determining specific locations and 

details of the monitoring program. The actual collection and evaluation of the data 

would be a shared responsibility of the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor. 

Monitoring Program System 

5-147
The following network is planned for operational and compliance monitoring of the 

operational constraints: 

A. Pump Station: The specific conductance (SC) of the water in the pump station wet 

well would be monitored continuously during system operation as an indicator of TDS. 

In addition, water samples would be collected weekly when the system is in operation 

and analyzed for TDS to verify and adjust the relationship between SC and TDS that is 

used for system operation. Flow meters would also be installed in the pump discharge 

pipes, but they would not likely be equipped with continuous monitoring-recording 

equipment. The primary purpose of these flow meters would be to provide pump 

operational information. 

B. Control Reservoir: Discharge would be monitored continuously at the outlet of the 

control reservoir when the system is in operation. 

C. Sheyenne River Downstream of Peterson Coulee: Discharge and SC would be 

monitored continuously at a new gage to be established on the Sheyenne River 

downstream of Peterson Coulee and the outlet discharge point. 

D. Sheyenne River Upstream of Peterson Coulee: Discharge and SC would be 

monitored continuously when the system is in operation at a new gage to be established 

on the Sheyenne River upstream of Peterson Coulee and the outlet discharge point. 

The continuous monitoring data would most likely be collected and made available on a 

real-time basis by the USGS. The pump station control system would electronically and 

automatically access this data and adjust the system discharge to remain in compliance. 

In addition, system operating staff would review the monitoring network data and verify 

proper operation daily for five days per week. 

Flow and SC monitoring would be performed using normal USGS methods. SC and 

water temperature would be measured using standard USGS temperature and SC probes. 

USGS gaging stations measure stage by sensing the pressure in a tube that is slowly 

releasing air or nitrogen through an underwater orifice. Stage, temperature, and SC data 

would be stored on a data logger and transferred via satellite to USGS facilities using 

typical USGS equipment and procedures. Discharge is estimated using the stage 

information and a previously determined relationship between the stage and discharge. 

Individual stream flow measurements with current meters and water quality sampling and 

laboratory analysis would be performed in accordance with normal USGS procedures and 

schedules, which is approximately monthly when the gages are in operation. These 

measurements would be used to establish and verify the stage-discharge relationship and 

the relationship between SC and TDS and possibly other constituents of concern. For 

some stations, water sampling and analysis would be more frequent (see below). 

Additional information on the monitoring system components follows. 

Pump Station Water Quality Monitoring

5-148
Specific conductance and temperature would be continuously monitored when the system

is in operation. Water samples would also be collected from the wet well weekly during 

system operation. These samples would be analyzed for TDS, SC, and other parameters 

as may be required for system operation and to verify permit compliance. 

System Discharge Monitoring 

A typical USGS gaging station would be established immediately upstream of the control 

reservoir outlet. The control reservoir outlet would provide a very stable stage-discharge 

relationship. This gage would operate when the outlet system is functioning. 

Sheyenne River Gages 

Typical USGS continuous discharge monitoring gaging stations with continuous 

monitoring of SC and temperature would be established on the Sheyenne River both 

upstream and downstream of Peterson Coulee. The gage locations would be determined 

following reconnaissance by USGS staff. A likely location for the downstream gage is 

near the bridge over the Sheyenne River about three-quarters of a mile downstream of 

Peterson Coulee. This bridge is located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, 

Township 151 North, Range 68 West. It may be desirable to place sheet pile across the 

low-flow channel to establish a hydraulic control and to provide deeper water to 

minimize the possibility of freezing the orifice and probes during the winter. This gage 

would operate continuously. If it is determined in later design phases that sheet pile is 

needed to control the river channel, real estate maps would be modified to show any 

channel improvements and flowage easements determined to be necessary. 

The upstream Sheyenne River gage may be located near the bridge about 2 miles 

upstream of the mouth of Peterson Coulee. This site is in Section 7, Township 151 

North, Range 68 West. This gage would operate continuously, when the outlet system is 

in operation. 

Dry Lake Diversion 

Normally, the new Channel A control structure would be closed in years when the outlet 

is operating so that flow could be diverted through the chain of lakes to Big Coulee. The 

gates of the new Channel A control structure would be opened in the event of significant 

flows (above 400 cfs) and stages (between elevations 1443 and 1446) in the Chain of 

Lakes. Similarly, the new Channel A control structure would be opened when Big 

Coulee flows exceeded 2,000 cfs. Big Coulee flows would be monitored using the 

previously mentioned gaging station. Historical data suggest the new Channel A control 

structure would likely be opened for about a month once every three years on the 

average. 

The new control structure on the Dry Lake outlet to Mikes Lake could be operated 

similar to the operating plan for the original Channel A control structure. With this plan, 

the stoplogs would be removed on October 1 to allow Dry Lake to drain to elevation 

5-149
1445 (Devils Lake levels permitting). In the spring, runoff conditions could be assessed, 

and if above-normal runoff is anticipated, the stoplogs could be left out until the lake was 

receding and had dropped below elevation 1447.5. At that time, the stoplogs could be 

replaced. During significant summer runoff events, the stoplogs could be adjusted 

following consideration of upstream and downstream impacts. Under current higher 

water level conditions (elevation 1447.0 and above), the stoplogs would not likely be 

installed and the structure would be left open, as the stoplogs would provide little control. 

Cost Estimate

The cost estimate for the Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet plan is summarized in Table 5-22. 

The estimated cost of the selected outlet plan used in the evaluation of alternatives earlier 

in this chapter, as shown in Column B, was $97,651,000. The current cost estimate, as 

expressed in a July 2002 price level, is $186,539,000 and shown in Column C. Adding 

expected inflation to this amount to the midpoint of expenditures, or the fully funded 

amount, is $208,228,000, as shown in Column D. Further details of the cost estimate are 

provided in Appendix F. A summary of cost differences between the estimate used in 

evaluation of alternatives and the current cost estimate (comparison of Columns B and C) 

is provided below. Costs are expressed in $1,000’s and Engineering and Design, as well 

as Supervision and Administration costs for items 1 through 10 below are included in 

items 11, 12 and 13. 

1) - $3,853.0 for outlet features - not including Dry Lake Diversion (reduced 

from $73,733.0 to $69,880.0 with more detailed analysis) 

2) + $7,802.0 for estimated costs associated with the Dry Lake diversion

($1,427.0 for the structural features; $2,494.0 for RE; $1,015.0 for 

environmental mitigation, and $2,866.0 for cultural resource surveys – more 

detailed analysis) 

3) + $3,810.0 for downstream flowage easements (were treated as annual 

negative benefits in evaluation of alternatives) (1) 

4) +$1,000.0 for cultural resource preservation first costs, not including Dry 

Lake diversion cultural costs (more detailed analysis) (1) 

5) +$10,139.0 for present worth of long term monitoring and identified 

adaptive management measures (added to first cost if considered a shared 

cost rather than an annual non-federal cost. Includes initial inventories and 

baseline development. (1) 

6) + $3,338.0 for environmental terrestrial mitigation, not including Dry Lake 

diversion mitigation costs (more detailed analysis) (1) 

7) + $9,000.0 for cutoffs and structures for continued natural flow over 

meander reaches (aquatic mitigation on the Sheyenne River) (although 

5-150
these mitigation features were earlier considered most appropriately defined 

by monitoring during actual operation, are now included as a project first 

cost) 

8) + $8,660.0 for erosion protection at 43 sites (aquatic mitigation on the 

Sheyenne River) (although these mitigation features were earlier considered 

most appropriately defined by monitoring during actual operation, are now 

included as a project first cost) 

9) +$18,424.0 for a sand filter within the outlet (included to minimize, to the 

extent practicable, the transfer of biota from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne 

River)

10) +$1,855.0 for safety measures on lowhead dams on the Sheyenne River 

(Although not recognized as a required project feature in the draft report, 

measures to address safety concerns at about 20 low head dams are now 

considered required project measures for outlet operation) 

11) +$10,300.0 for Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) costs 

added to first cost as a cost shared element (for consistency of consideration 

for alternatives studied in the past, was not added to cost of each alternative) 

12) + $14,616.0 for Engineering and Design costs (increase due to more 

detailed analysis and additional project features requiring engineering and 

design) 

13) + $3,797.0 Supervision and Administration (increase due to more detailed 

analysis and additional project features) 

(1) This item was recognized as a potential increase in the February draft report. 

 

5-151
 Table 5-22: Estimated Cost, Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet Plan

 COST SUMMARY

 ($000's)

A B C D E

 Cost Shared Costs See this item

Formulation July 02 Fully Annual number in text

Project Features Estimate Price Level Funded Non-Federal for comparison

Feb.02 Costs Costs [4] Costs of Columns B&C

01 - LANDS & DAMAGES

 Outlet $978.0 $985.0 $1,039.0 1

 Dry Lake Diversion $2,494.0 $2,701.0 2

 D.S.Flowage Easements $3,810.0 $4,127.0 3

 Lowhead Dams on Shey. River $40.0 $43.0 10

 Real Estate Mitigation $3,287.0 $3,756.0 6

 Operational Real Estate Issues [1]

02 - RELOCATIONS $1,156.0 $1,275.0 1

06 - FISH AND WILDLIFE

 Envir.Mitig. (Outlet) $94.0 $104.0 1

 Envir.Mitig. (Dry Lake) $1,015.0 $1,159.0 2

 Envir.Mitig. (Downstream) $3,900.0 6

 Terrestrial $3,951.0 $4,515.0 6

 Cutoffs/Meanders $9,000.0 $10,284.0 7

 Erosion Protection $8,660.0 $9,896.0 8

 Monitoring (Baseline Establish.)

 Water Quality $640.0 $713.0 5

 Groundwater/Salinity $543.0 $604.0 5

 Erosion/Sediment $304.0 $338.0 5

 Aquatic Habitat $333.0 $372.0 5

 Aquatic/Invasive Species $1,002.0 $1,115.0 5

 Riparian Habitat $369.0 $410.0 5

 Adaptive Management Costs

 Environmental Mitigation $3,000.0 $4,271.0 [2] 5

 Monitoring (1st 10 years) $3,652.0 $5,199.0 [2] 5

09 - CHANNELS

 Gravity Pipeline $12,053.0 $14,158.0 $15,337.0 1

 Pressure Pipeline & Reservoir $33,837.0 $30,285.0 $32,806.0 1

 Inlet Channel $9,896.0 $6,560.0 $7,106.0 1

 Dry Lake Diversion $1,246.0 $2,673.0 $2,974.0 2

 Lowhead Dams on Shey. River $1,815.0 $2,074.0 10

13 - PUMPING PLANTS

 Pumps and Motors $3,585.0 $3,554.0 $3,818.0 1

 Pump Station and Controls $13,384.0 $13,088.0 $14,178.0 1

 Sand Filter $18,424.0 $19,958.0 $950.0 9

18 - CULT. RES. PRESERV. 

 1% of Federal Costs: All Federal $700.0 $1,220.0 $1,394.0 4

 Over 1%: Cost Shared $9,300.0 $9,780.0 $11,175.0 4

 Dry Lake Diversion Surveys $2,866.0 $3,276.0 2

 Monitoring (1st 10 years) $296.0 $422.0 [2] 5

 Potential Future Mitigation Needs [3]

30 - ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

 General Investigations (PED) $10,300.0 $10,300.0 11

 Construction General Funding $4,332.0 $18,948.0 $21,448.0 12

31 - SUPERV. & ADMINIST. (7%) $4,440.0 $8,237.0 $10,041.0 13

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

 Outlet Operation $1,763.0

 Additional DS Water Treatment $50.6

 O&M of Misc. Project Features $200.0

TOTAL $97,651.0 $186,539.0 $208,228.0 $2,963.6

[1] Non-Federal sponsor responsible for unidentified, but potential future real estate costs.

[2] Costs after 10th year to be borne by non-federal sponsor. Amount dependent on need for outlet operation.

[3] Potential identification of additional cultural sites requiring mitigation to be cost shared.

[4] Includes expected inflation through the scheduled midpoint of expenditure 

F

5-152
Economics Analysis Summary

Economic results for the Pelican Lake Outlet are summarized in Table 5-23. The 

without-project condition used for this analysis is that which was developed in the 

analysis of the Intermediate Array of Alternatives, not the newer study of the Most 

Likely Future Without-Project condition described previously in this section. Using the 

results of the newer analysis of the Most Likely Future Without Project would be 

expected to make no significant difference in the conclusions that can be drawn from the 

results of the economics analysis. 

Table 5-23: Pelican Lake 300-cfs Outlet Economic Analysis 

Analysis Type or Future 

Scenario Total Cost

Lake Level

Without 

Outlet

Lake Level 

With Outlet

Total Annual 

Benefits

Total Annual 

Net Benefits BCR

Stochastic $186,462 1458.741 1455.851 $2,595 ($11,325) 0.19

Wet Future $186,462 1460.6 1457.5 $22,554 $7,942 1.54

1455 Moderate Future $186,462 1454.9 1452.1 $7,818 ($6,328) 0.55

1450 Moderate Future $186,462 1450 1448.9 $1,847 ($12,135) 0.13

Note: All Costs are in Thousands of Dollars 1 Elevation based on 10 % probability of reaching or exceeding given lake level in 50-yrs.

Upper Basin Storage 

The upper basin management alternative increases the amount of available upper basin 

storage volume in the watershed. For analysis of this alternative, the Corps assumed that 

50 percent of the total available upper basin storage could be restored as part of a viable 

program. Implementation of this alternative would require placement of 39,681 acres of 

land into an upper basin storage program. Much of this land is currently prime farmland. 

Previous programs have varied the duration of the storage program from an annual 

program to one with a 10-year contract. Therefore, an expanded program could involve 

contract lengths for any duration up to 10 years. 

Implementation of an upper basin storage program was assumed to require the following: 

A. Construction of outlet structures at some of the storage sites. These measures could 

vary from no construction to construction of a berm with an outlet structure, likely a 

gated pipe that allows flexibility for future conditions. Costs for these outlet structures 

would be based on site-specific conditions, and could vary from $0 up to $100,000 per 

site. The storage available at each site would also vary, depending on the sites selected 

and incorporated into the program. 

5-153
B. Purchase of an easement or lease for agricultural land. Costs for easements or leases 

could vary widely since some lands may be more valuable agricultural areas than others 

(ranging from 10 to 70 percent of fee title). Land costs are currently averaging about 

$400 per acre (although prime farmland could be higher). 

C. Program administration and negotiations, including those to acquire land through 

condemnation (minimum of $4,800 per tract). 

D. Maintenance of the outlet structures, the cost of which would be based on the size and 

configuration of outlet structures. 

E. Potential removal of outlet structures when the lake recedes. 

The project costs for implementation of the upper basin management alternative could 

vary widely, depending on the sites selected for inclusion in the program. Annual costs 

for previous upper basin storage programs ranged from $40 to $90 per acre per year. 

However, it was assumed that the project costs would be computed as a one-time first 

cost (which includes acquisition or leasing of lands, construction of outlet structures, and 

other associated maintenance and/or removal costs). Therefore, these costs were 

computed based on an upfront first cost per acre, estimated to be at least three times the 

land costs (an average per acre value of $1,000). Therefore, the total project costs for the 

upper basin management alternative were estimated at $39,681,000. A summary of the 

economic analysis for Upper Basis Storage is provided in the following table. 

Upper Basin Storage Economic Analysis 

Analysis Type or 

Future Scenario Total Cost 

Lake Level 

Without 

Upper 

Basin 

Storage 

Lake Level With 

Upper Basin 

Storage 

Total Annual 

Benefits 

Total 

Annual Net 

Benefits 

BCR

Stochastic $39,681 1458.741 14581 $773 ($1,877) 0.29

Wet Future $39,681 1460.6 1460 $3,191 $541 1.20

Note: All Costs are in Thousands of 

Dollars

1 Elevation based on 10% probability of reaching or exceeding given lake level in 50 years. 

Expanded Infrastructure Protection 

The Expanded Infrastructure Protection Alternative was analyzed in greater detail by 

Barr Engineering as part of the analysis of other infrastructure features around Devils 

Lake discussed in the Most Likely Future Without Project section. This study used 

previous work described in the section, Intermediate Alternatives, and in Appendix B as 

its base. The study extended the previous work by examining further the costs and 

benefits of flood protection measures that would need to be implemented in the near 

5-154
future. Following is a summary of the study and its results for the Expanded 

Infrastructure Alternative. For more detail on how the study was performed and the 

results of the study, please refer to the report titled Devils Lake Infrastructure Protection 

Study, January 2003 by Barr Engineering. 

General Information 

Location 

Three separate areas are currently being offered protection by a road or series of roads 

that are acting as dams and emergency levees. These areas include: 

Mission Township Area—approximately 21 square miles of Mission Township within 

the Spirit Lake Reservation on the southeast side of Devils Lake between Mission Bay 

and Black Tiger Bay. 

Highway 57/1 Area—an area of approximately one square mile within the Spirit Lake 

Reservation on the south side of Devils Lake south of the intersection of ND Highway 57 

and BIA Highway 1. 

Acorn Ridge Area—an area south of the City of Devils Lake west of ND Highway 20 

and north of Camp Grafton. 

Figure 5-50 shows the approximate extents of these areas, and the inundation extents at 

the three reference lake levels (1447, 1454, and 1463). 

5-155
Figure 5-50: Expanded Infrastructure Features 

5-156
Description 

The length of roads currently acting as dams is approximately 7 miles. The roads acting 

as dams issue originated in 1995 when culverts under those roads were plugged as part of 

emergency measures to protect existing features. Currently, the difference in water levels 

on each side of the road is as much as 12 feet. This pressure difference is a potential 

safety hazard since the roads were not designed to be used as dams. 

Three emergency levees and portions of ND Highway 20, BIA Highway 4, and BIA 

Highway 5 that are acting as dams protect the Mission Township area between Mission 

Bay and Black Tiger Bay. Portions of ND Highway 57 and BIA Highway 1 acting as 

dams protect the area directly south of the intersection of those two highways. The 

Acorn Ridge area is protected by a section of ND Highway 20 that is acting as a dam. 

History of Flood Protection 

In the past, flood protection in the areas protected by roads acting as dams has consisted 

of (1) incremental raising of the roads when the water level approaches the road surface, 

and (2) construction of emergency levees. The initial raising of the roads generally 

included plugging of drainage culverts, which has allowed the roads to act as dams

holding back lake water and providing protection to areas on the opposite side of the 

roads. These actions are summarized in Table 5-24. 

Protection Strategy by Lake Level

The most economical protection strategy has been determined to be perimeter levees 

constructed in the locations shown on Figure 5-50. To relieve the existing roads that are 

acting as dams, the first action would be to construct the levees to a top elevation of 1455 

that would provide protection to a lake level of 1450. The second action level would 

raise the perimeter levees to bring them to a top elevation of 1462, which would protect 

to lake elevations of 1457. The third and final action level would raise the perimeter 

levees to bring them to a top elevation of 1468, which would provide protection to lake 

elevations of 1463. 

Protection Strategy Description

The assumed flood protection strategies for each of the three areas is as follows: 

Mission Township Area 

This area would be protected by a series of levees designated on Figure 5-50 as Levees 

25A through 25J. Levee25A would be constructed adjacent to the embankments of BIA 

Highways 4 and 5 on the land side and utilize those embankments for cofferdams on the 

lake side. Construction would require temporary cofferdam construction on the land side 

5-157
Table 5-24: Roads Acting as Dams – History of Flood Protection 

Road Raises 

Road Location

Road Surface 

Elevation Length (miles) Year Constructed

ND Hwy 20 Acorn Ridge Area 1443 0.28 1997 

ND Hwy 20 Acorn Ridge Area 1455 1.27 2001 

ND Hwy 20 From ND Highway 57 to

Tokio 

1447.5 1.91 1997

ND Hwy 20 From ND Highway 57 to

Tokio 

1451.5 3.71 1999

BIA Hwy 4 From BIA Highway 1 to 

ND Highway 20 

1450.5 1.98 1999

BIA Hwy 5 From BIA Highway 4 to 

ND Highway 20 

1450.5 0.55 1999

BIA Hwy 6 From BIA Highway 1 to 

ND Highway 20 

1456.9 0.90 2002

Emergency Levees 

Location Crest Elevation

Approximate 

Length (feet) Year Constructed

1445 500 1997

1447.6 750 1998

Section 35 (west)

1452 1000 2001

1445 400 1997

1449 500 1998

Section 35 (central) 

1453 600 2001

1445 750 1997

1449 1000 1998

Section 31 

1453 1200 2001

where water currently inundates the levee foundation area. Levees 25B, C, and G would 

be constructed adjacent to and on the land side of the emergency levees in those areas. A 

cofferdam was assumed to be required on the landside of Levee 25G. Levees 25D, E, 

and F are freeboard levees (base elevation is above the design lake level and height of the 

levee only provides freeboard protection), so can be constructed without cofferdams. A 

cofferdam was assumed to be required on both the landside and lake side of Levees 25I 

and 25J. Equalization culverts would be placed through ND Highway 20 and BIA 

Highways 4 and 5 to prevent those roadway embankments from acting as levees. 

The internal drainage system was analyzed to assist with the sizing of an interior pump 

station to remove the accumulation of water from the interior area behind the levees. The 

analysis investigated the amount of water expected from precipitation, seepage through 

the levees, and groundwater seepage underneath the levees. An interior drainage system

was designed to provide a minimum of 1-foot freeboard for structures and 2-foot 

freeboard for roads during the 100-year event. A pump station for Mission Township has 

been designed to maintain the interior water level at an elevation of 1442. The resulting 

5-158
peak flow rate to the pumping station is 222 cfs for Mission Township. To meet these 

requirements, a pump station with one 15-cfs capacity pump and two 20-cfs capacity 

pumps is required. The total maximum pumping head is approximately 26 feet. 

Highway 57/1 Area 

A levee to protect this area was analyzed and is estimated to cost $18.7 million. The 

estimated value of property protected by this levee is only a little over $1 million, and 

therefore it is not expected that this levee would be justifiable. It is not included in the 

remainder of this analysis. Highways BIA 1 and BIA 4, currently protected by the levee, 

could be raised to protect them from flooding. 

Acorn Ridge Area 

This area would be protected by a levee, constructed parallel to the portion of ND 

Highway 20 currently acting as a dam. Levee 25K would be constructed adjacent to the 

road embankment on the land side and would use that embankment for cofferdams on the 

lake side. Construction would require temporary cofferdam construction on the land side 

where water currently inundates the levee foundation area. 

Similar to the Mission Township area, an interior drainage analysis was performed for 

the Acorn Ridge area. The resulting peak flow rate to the pumping station in order to 

provide 1-foot freeboard for structures and 2-foot freeboard for roads during 100-year 

event is 58 cfs for the Acorn Ridge area. A pump station for this area will require a 

single 5-cfs pump. 

Environmental/Cultural Issues

HTRW 

Twenty-seven potential HTRW sites identified within the general area of this feature are 

indicated on Figure 5-50. No facilities appear to be located within the footprint of the 

proposed dams and levees or within the area where the lake may expand. 

Cultural 

Areas of potential cultural sites are shown on Figure 5-50. Sites within the footprint of 

proposed dams and levees and with the area of ponding behind the levees will require 

field surveys. 

Environmental 

Areas affected by this project (for construction at the first action level) are shown in the 

table on Figure 5-50. Environmental Impacts are discussed in Chapter 6. 

5-159
Economics of Flood Protection

Damages 

For the present analysis, the flood damage estimates for Expanded Infrastructure were 

reassessed in order to update and more accurately characterize the nature of the damages. 

The primary damages include: Relocation of residences; detours; restoration and raising 

costs associated with roads that would be protected by this alternative; and relocation of 

the North sewage lagoon in St. Michael. 

Costs 

The updated costs of providing flood protection for roads acting as dams are detailed in 

Tables 5-25 and 5-26. All costs are given in 2002 dollars. The primary costs include: 

earthwork items associated with levees and cofferdam construction; equipment items for 

the pump station for interior drainage; real estate costs associated with levees and 

ponding areas; raising costs associated with interior roads adjacent to the ponding areas. 

Economic Results 

Results of the economics analysis are summarized in Tables 5-25 and 5-26. The net 

benefits are lower than were computed for this alternative in the intermediate array of

alternatives and show this alternative to not be cost effective. This is partially due to 

somewhat higher estimated construction costs, but is largely due to a recent raise of BIA 

6 that has reduced the benefits of this alternative. 

Economic impacts of the alternatives which were evaluated in detail are summarized in 

Table 5-27. 

Table 5-25: Expanded Infrastructure Economics Summary – Flood Protection 

Strategies for First Increment 

Flood Protection 

Strategy Having

Largest Net Benefits

Total First 

Costs for First 

Action Level

Damages 

Prevented

Average

Annual Net 

Benefits2

BenefitCost Ratio

Average 

Annual Net 

Benefits2

BenefitCost Ratio

One Incremental 

Levee Raise

$ 3,404,000 $ 853,000 $ (172,300) 0.23 $ (160,800) 0.24

One Incremental 

Levee Raise

$ 35,674,000 $ 20,763,000 $ (1,047,500) 0.55 $ (945,700) 0.57

$ 39,078,000 $ 21,616,000 $ (1,219,800) 0.52 $ (1,106,500) 0.54

Notes

1

2

3

Expanded Infrastructure Total

Total first costs are actual flood protection costs, in present value. Values for damages and annual damages are also listed 

in present value.

The net benefits listed were averaged over 10,000 traces. The averages were then annualized over a 50-year period.

The damages prevented that are listed for Roads Acting as Dams includes: protection of St. Michael structures and detours

around the lake when BIA Highway 6 and ND Highway 20 are closed. These damages represent the overall benefits to the 

entire Infrastructure Protection system as a whole.

Wet Future Scenario

Present Worth Stochastic Analysis Analysis 1

Protected Area

Acorn Ridge

Mission Township

Area3

5-160
Table 5-26: Expanded Infrastructure Economics Summary – Flood Protection 

Strategies up to Lake Level 1463 

Flood Protection 

Strategy Having

Largest Net 

Benefits

Total First 

Costs

Total Damages

Prevented

Average 

Annual Net 

Benefits2

BenefitCost Ratio

Average

Annual Net 

Benefits2

BenefitCost Ratio

Incremental Levee 

Raises

 $ 15,209,000 $ 3,098,000 $ (468,500) 0.12 $ (193,400) 0.21

Incremental Levee 

Raises

 $ 87,509,000 $ 7,220,000 $ (1,410,200) 0.61 $ (166,100) 0.93

$ 102,718,000 $ 10,318,000 $ (1,878,700) 0.54 $ (359,500) 0.86

Notes

1

2

3

Present Worth1

Wet Future Scenario

Analysis

Total first costs are actual flood protection costs, in present value. Values for damages and annual damages are also listed

in present value.

The net benefits listed were averaged over 10,000 traces. The averages were then annualized over a 50-year period.

The damages prevented that are listed for Roads Acting as Dams includes: protection of St. Michael structures and detours

around the lake when BIA Highway 6 and ND Highway 20 are closed. These damages represent the overall benefits to the 

entire Infrastructure Protection system as a whole. 

Stochastic Analysis

Expanded Infrastructure Total

Protected Area

Acorn Ridge

Mission Township

Area3

Table 5-27: “Benefit-Cost Ratios” for Alternatives Being Evaluated in Detail 

 Scenarios

Alternatives Stochastic Wet Future 1455 Max. 1450 Max.

Stg. Future Stg. Future

elican Lake 300 cfs

utlet (Preferred Alternative) 0.19 1.54 0.55 0.13

P

O

Infrastructure

Protection [1] 1.07 1.86 1.33 0.93

Upper Basin

Storage 0.29 1.20

Expanded Infrastructure Protection

 (Acorn Ridge) [2] 0.12 0.21 0.15 0.13

Expanded Infrastructure Protection

 (Mission Twnshp) [2] 0.61 0.93 0.48 0.42

[1] Cost effectiveness of Likely Future emergency measures, as measured against No Action base

 condition. (does not include Roads Acting as Dams feature)

[2] Roads acting as dams feature, assuming continued infrastructure protection has already taken place

 as a base condition

5-161